Lord Patel of Blackburn

Adam Hafejee Patel Esquire, having been created Baron Patel of Blackburn, of Langho in the County of Lancashire, for life by Letters Patent dated 14th February 2000--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Taylor of Blackburn and the Baroness Castle of Blackburn.

Information: Government Policy

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to appoint a Minister of information.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have no plans to appoint a Minister of information. There has never been a Minister of information, except in times of war. Ministers are responsible for the information output of their departments and the Prime Minister is responsible for the overall information strategy of the Government.

Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and full reply. But does the noble and learned Lord realise just how disturbed ordinary people in this country are by the sight of a government being predominantly run by spin doctors, rather than by Ministers? In the country at large, people want to see Ministers answering for the crisis in the health service, for chaos over constitutional reform, and for the problems and delays at the Dome. Further, does the Minister recognise that there is no true form of accountability either in this Chamber or in the other place? Indeed, we saw this only yesterday when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was reprimanded in another place for excessive spin-doctoring and for the mendacious activities of these spin doctors--

Noble Lords: Order! Question!

Lord Patten: Would it not be better for them to be brought under democratic control?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if I may say so, that was a grotesque misrepresentation of the position. Ministers do answer for decisions. They answer to Parliament; they answer to the media; and they answer to the people.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in deference to my noble friend Lord Patten, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does the noble and learned Lord realise that some of us will be very grateful for the reply that he has given? We congratulate the Government on finding one thing in this country that they do not wish to change.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very grateful for that question, coming as it does from a somewhat unaccustomed source.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the Government are aware that the three information papers issued by the Cabinet Office this year--namely, Reaching Out, Wiring It Up, and Adding it Up--cost, in total, £54? Is the Minister aware that it is now possible to spend a weekend in Paris for rather less than that sum? Is it not seriously the case that such information documents are way beyond the resources of normal citizens?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the documents to which the noble Lord refers are three reports from the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office. They are intended to be serious studies of such matters as government policy in the regions. They are not simply information sheets; they are serious studies which have been carried out over a long period of time. It seems to me to be right that they should be as long as they are.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a Minister, whether new or existing, is needed to prevent the multi-announcement of statements giving the impression that new money is involved with each repetition? I have in mind the case of the £20 million for a "new" hospital admission system, which was announced four times within 12 months.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the particular announcement to which the noble Lord refers. However, it is important that the Government have been able to say what they are doing; indeed, this has been so since governments began. Governments must do so in an honest and straightforward way, as is the case with this Government. But, from time to time, that will inevitably involve repeating things that have been announced before.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord read the press reports to the effect that managers in the health service have been thoroughly confused by the numerous repeat announcements of new government expenditure to the extent that they have not the faintest idea whether or not it is new money? What on earth is the point of announcing a new spending initiative on three or four occasions, unless the intention is to convince the public that new money is available when, in fact, it is not?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in making announcements, for example, about health provision, I do not accept that the Government seek to mislead in any way. Press statements frequently refer to matters that have previously been mentioned. There is nothing misleading about that.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, has the BMA got the matter completely wrong then? The doctors have recently complained bitterly that they are faced with precisely the circumstances that my noble friend Lord Waddington has described. Are they all wrong? Will the Government publish their reply to the BMA strictures?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know to what the noble Lord refers when he refers to the BMA. As I say, it is absolutely right and proper that the Government Information and Communication Service, which issues the information to which the noble Lord refers, should explain both to the medical profession and beyond what the Government are doing. That it does so repeatedly is, in my view, sensible where the public are unaware of what is going on.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, while it is acceptable that the Government should be able to repeat their good messages, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it is not only in the National Health Service that this problem arises? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is notorious for putting out press releases stating that farmers are being helped to the tune of x-million or x-billion pounds. Often we find that, instead of this assistance being given at the time of the announcement, it has already been given, or is to be given at some time in the future. The public have the impression that farmers are feather-bedded when they are struggling.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am quite sure that the public's view on farmers is not based on press releases issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it is based on far more profound matters. I do not know the detail of the particular press release to which the noble Countess refers, but it is perfectly appropriate that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should set out what it is doing.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord understand the real concern that lies behind this Question; namely, the increased politicisation of the government information machine and its increased non- accountability to the democratic process, and in particular to Parliament? What has been the cost and the number of the press releases that have been issued over the course of the past 12 months, or for the latest date for which figures are available? What was the comparable figure under the previous government?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is incredibly important that the Government Information and Communication Service retains the confidence of the people; that it complies with the Civil Service code; that it has guidelines with which it complies; and that those guidelines state that its activities should be relevant to government responsibilities, should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical, and should not be liable to misrepresentation as being party political; should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds. I believe that it complies with those guidelines. I believe that it is an important part of the Government's operation. The fact that various elements in the press complain about press releases that are made does not mean, nor does it justify, an outright attack on the GICS, which I believe to be an honourable and effective part of the Civil Service. As regards the number of press releases issued and the comparable costs, I am afraid that I do not have the figures with me, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Legislation: Revising Chamber Powers

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a legitimate revising chamber should occasionally be able to revise legislation in ways the House of Commons would not have wished.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect that the subtleties of the noble Earl's Question are probably more suitable for university seminars than for brief responses at the Dispatch Box. However, I shall summarise the Government's position and hope that that meets with the noble Earl's approval.
	Any revising chamber, however legitimate it may be as a revising chamber, must recognise that the ultimate authority rests with the primary chamber. It must be for the latter to decide in each case to accept either revisions proposed by the revising chamber or compromise positions which may differ from those that they might have wished.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that everyone in this Chamber accepts the proposition that the will of the other place should usually prevail. However, the proposition that its will should always prevail and the proposition that we need a revising chamber are incompatible. Which of these propositions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Earl's contention that those propositions are incompatible. As I said in my original response, it is obviously--as the noble Earl has accepted--the constitutionally accepted position that the other place is the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. As I said in my original reply, there may be occasions on which the position of this Chamber--or that of any revising chamber--may be considered by another place and it may indeed be accepted. I remember the noble Earl's generous remarks on the occasion of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill only a week ago when he said that it was incumbent on him to express his intense pleasure that on that occasion the Government listened to this House. Ultimately it is for the primary Chamber to maintain a primary position.

Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that for once the noble Earl is somewhat illogical? It seems to me to be perfectly compatible for the revising Chamber to revise and for the ultimately democratic Chamber to make up its mind on what should pass into legislation. I personally have no difficulty with that as long as the House of Commons at least listens to what we have to say. That, surely, is the central point of what we do as revisers. Does my noble friend agree with that?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as so often, my noble friend, in suggesting that the noble Earl was illogical, is more exact than I dared to be when responding. However, I think it was clear from my response to the noble Earl's supplementary question that I believe that there is no incompatibility in what he suggested.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look favourably on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords that your Lordships' House should have power to delay statutory instruments for a short period and to invite another place to think again?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I have made clear on several occasions, the Government do not intend to respond piecemeal to individual recommendations of the Royal Commission. We have accepted it in broad terms as a good basis for further reform. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Commission recognised that the second Chamber should always be subordinate, even when fully reformed.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise the following words:
	"A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account"?
	Those words were written by the noble Baroness in The Parliamentary Monitor in November 1999 when the House of Lords Bill had become an Act. In the light of that, is not the answer to the noble Earl's Question, yes?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. The answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is the same point made by my noble friend Lord Peston; namely, that the noble Lord is being illogical. There is nothing inconsistent in the statement which the noble Lord quoted, nor in my original Answer to the noble Earl.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it the Government's position that a Bill coming from the other place is ultimately inviolable, or is it their position that it is ultimately infallible? In her reply, will the noble Baroness take an illustration of a provision that was not promised in the manifesto, perhaps the imposition of party lists upon European elections?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is well aware, that matter was subject to intensive scrutiny by this House. Ultimately the other place prevailed. However, I draw his attention to the more recent example in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was involved; namely, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, in which the Government accepted amendments which originated from this House which they felt improved the Bill. That was obviously a matter of some importance. As I said in my original Answer, in each case the Government will need to decide whether it is appropriate to accept propositions from the revising Chamber.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the logic of the noble Earl's Question is simply that, if it is not right, to what constructive end and to what reasonable purpose do we continue to sit here at all?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am rather surprised by that question. Perhaps I should simply repeat the answer that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Without in any way seeking to say that that constitutes universally and absolutely the last word, it seems to me to reflect the position exactly. It must be for the other place to decide in each case whether to accept revisions proposed by the revising Chamber--and, of course, on certain occasions it accepts such revisions--or compromise positions which may differ from those which it may have originally wanted. I think that that is clear.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in arguing that we have the right to be heard by another place but that it has an automatic right to prevail over us, she is describing exactly the position of the Social Security Advisory Committee? Does she agree that it is properly described as the Cassandra of the body politic? Has she any evidence that this House is willing to occupy such a position?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I take once again the example of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. If the noble Earl regards the amendments for which he argued as being Cassandra-like, it is for him to accept that description. I described them as improving the Bill. I think that is optimistic rather than pessimistic.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that ultimately we are saying that the representative Chamber must prevail? If the noble Earl cannot accept that, he is not accepting a basic principle of democracy.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. Through my noble friend's question, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the remarks that he made in his well-known constitutional lecture last autumn. He said that he of course accepted that the House of Lords was not going to revise the position, or take another position which moved away from the basic fact that, under our constitution, the Government are formed from the elected House of Commons, and ultimately that is the democratic responsibility of the Government.

Organophosphates

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their current policy on the licensing of products containing organophosphates as their active ingredient for agricultural and domestic use.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government's primary aim is the protection of human safety and the environment. All organophosphates for agricultural and domestic use are therefore tightly controlled through stringent scientific evaluation and rigorous regulatory arrangements.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that it now transpires that there are questions about the rigorous safety checks on organophosphates? Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, if the Minister is minded to restore organophosphate sheep-dips to public sale, will she ensure that the labels contain a very clear use-by date? There are now indications that contaminants--about which I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in 1993, when he held the office of Minister--are developing in stored sheep-dips. So it is very important that they are used immediately.
	Secondly, do the Government propose to run any studies on the effects on children of organophosphates used in the home?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Countess is aware, we followed the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee that organophosphate sheep-dip should be withdrawn from the market unless and until satisfactory packaging to protect from accidental spillage of concentrate could be brought forward by the manufacturers. If they succeed in providing that kind of satisfactory packaging, and the advice is to allow the product back on to the market, I shall certainly look at the issue of best before dates in terms of both the packaging and the advice to users, to ensure that users are aware that the best before dates are not only theoretical but have safety implications.
	As far as concerns the issue of research into its effects on children, my understanding is that at the moment no specific research is taking place. We are planning a wide-ranging seminar on future research needs for organophosphates next month. It is possible that suggestions may be put forward then.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say what the poor sheep with sheep scab are doing while organophosphates are off the market? How are they being treated?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, knows better than I that there are alternative products in terms of injectables that cover some parasites and in terms of SP dips rather than OP dips. I recognise that both those alternative treatments have drawbacks and that there are difficulties over price. But alternative treatments are available in terms of pour-ons, dips and injectables.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say what organophosphates that are used in the home come into contact with our children? Can she say whether those items will be looked at in the very near future?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we should not think that, because no specific research projects are being funded by MAFF at the moment, the exposure of children to organophosphate products is not taken into account in the licensing process. It is taken into account in the licensing process, whether it is a human medicines licence for products such as malathion, which is used for head lice, or licensing of flea collars for pets. I understand that the Veterinary Products Committee has asked for extra information about the effects on users, including children, of those kinds of products. Equally, it has asked for information on pesticides--which could be insecticides--that are used in the home. It is part and parcel of the regulatory process that the effects on any users, including children, are taken into account. As I said, it is not impossible that we shall look also at proposals for specific research projects.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister think that parents are aware, when they are using the nit lotions, that those products contain ingredients such as organophosphates? They may have read in the newspapers that organophosphates are controversial for use on sheep, yet they are knowingly using such products on their own children's hair with, as we heard, unresearched results.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I did not say that there were unresearched results as far as concerns the use of organophosphate medicines for the treatment of head lice. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has to approve such usage, and it has to do so through a rigorous assessment of the safety process. That has been gone through. The Committee on Safety of Medicines did not suggest that there was any reason for withdrawal. It is precisely because not everyone may know every detail of what is contained in a medicine or treatment that they use that we must have robust regulatory processes in order to ensure that there are not products on the market that might be dangerous.

The Countess of Mar: My Lord, is it not the case that in domestic situations the users are untrained and uncontrolled? There is a serious danger--I have come across a number of cases--of over-use of organophosphate products, which causes damage, particularly to children. I am especially concerned about children under five, whose neurological systems are not fully developed.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is right that we should be continually vigilant in this area. We have to be particularly concerned if there are possible effects on children which have not been recognised. As I said, we hope that the seminar that we intend to hold in March as a follow-up to the research recommendations from the COT report which was published last year will indicate some ways forward to ensure that we cover all these areas. As the noble Countess knows, a vast amount of time, energy and scientific work has gone into the assessment of these products.

Afghan Aircraft Hijack

Lord Brabazon of Tara: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many passengers on the Afghan flight hijacked to Stansted have applied for political asylum.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as of 15th February, 79 passengers have applied for asylum or are dependants of those who have applied for asylum.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he tell me what the Government will now do to prevent such incidents happening again? Can he further tell me what representations the Government have made to the Russian Government, which appear to be in clear contravention of international civil aviation conventions in this matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise representations that have been made to the Russian Government. However, no doubt discussions will continue. As the noble Lord is well aware, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made plain our distaste for the hijacking activities that took place when the aircraft was diverted to Stansted Airport. We have a very good record in this respect--as had the previous government, it should fairly be said--and we shall continue to ensure that we take the most robust measures possible to deter other people from considering such action.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in matters of immigration and asylum and that it was rather unfortunate for him to have made a pronouncement that those people should go back even before their applications were considered? Will he further accept that the Afghans were entitled to make an application for asylum under the present Immigration and Asylum Act and that there is a fast-track system which can determine whether or not the case is genuine? Will he accept that the asylum seekers--bar those being charged with hijacking--have done nothing wrong under the obligations of the United Nations Charter on Refugees?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully accept that those who have come here as an unfortunate consequence of the hijacking are entitled to make an asylum application. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's assessment of the position of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has not pre-judged the claims. He has made it clear that he will act strictly in accordance with the law by considering each claim on its merits. That must be right and proper.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent incident shows the need for improving the quality of initial asylum decisions? Would that not greatly reduce the number of appeals and applications for judicial review? Is it not important that the first decision maker should personally see the applicant?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the final point made by the noble Lord is an important one. Clearly, the way in which cases are reviewed will have an impact on their outcome. The Government have taken effective action by putting into law the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which will actively deter false asylum seekers but at the same time provide for a new streamlined appeals system to reduce the scope for delay by applicants pursuing multiple avenues of appeal. We believe that to be right and proper. The measures have received active and wide support from both sides of the Chamber.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, is any distinction to be made between those seeking asylum here who had no expectation of leaving their own country and those who were part of a plan hoping and expecting to arrive here?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, each asylum application must be judged on its merits. Clearly the intentions of those wishing to seek asylum will be a consideration in individual decisions. The decisions are complex, but no doubt, as the process will be speeded up, all the applications will be properly processed, as they should be.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of the Russian Government. Will the Minister confirm that it was the Russian Government's responsibility under international treaty to deal with the situation when the aircraft landed in Moscow? During the hijack period, did the Government consider the option of returning the aircraft to Moscow to allow the Russians to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? Will the Minister at least undertake to write to my noble friend Lord Brabazon in response to the question of representations made to the government in Moscow, both during and since the hijack?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to give precise answers from the Dispatch Box this afternoon to the first two questions that the noble Lord has quite understandably, rightly and properly put to me. I am happy to undertake further investigation of those points. Of course I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to copy correspondence, where possible, to other noble Lords with an interest in the matter and to place a copy in the Library.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is any channel now open to enable the Government to engage in dialogue with the Taliban administration, given that its interests are inextricably linked with heroin distribution and terrorism in Afghanistan?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are of course channels of communication between our Government and the Taliban government. They are important because there are important matters between the two governments. The noble Viscount makes an important point about the movement of drugs and the appalling trade in humanity that takes place, with people coming to this country falsely seeking asylum. Those two matters seem to be closely related.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister advise what representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government from airlines using Stansted airport, Stansted being--these are my words--the designated hijack airport of the United Kingdom? Are the Government considering the use of any other airport, for example, a military airport, in order to avoid the chaos that ensued at Stansted for passengers and airlines alike?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously when major incidents of that kind take place there will be discussions with governments, particularly within the European Union. We shall continue those discussions. The noble Lord makes a valuable point and the matter will no doubt be considered.

Business of the House: Debate this Day

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Russell set down for today shall be limited to five hours.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee Report

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 27) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	APPOINTMENT OF A FURTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE
	1. The Committee has considered what further ad hoc committee should follow the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which reported in July 1999. We have had regard to the desirability of complementing rather than overlapping with the work of House of Commons committees. Two proposals have been made to us.
	MONETARY POLICY
	2. The Select Committee on the Monetary Policy, Committee of the Bank of England commented as follows in the preface to its Report (HL Paper 96, Session 1998-99):
	"When the Liaison Committee recommended the establishment of this Committee it invited us to consider whether the subject matter warranted the appointment of a permanent sessional scrutiny committee. It has become clear to us during our enquiry that the time allowed for us has been sufficient only to scratch the surface of a vast and developing subject. We are mindful, in reporting to the House, that our Report can only be a mere introduction to a new policy that requires in-depth and continuing scrutiny. We beg, leave of the House to consider the reappointment of the Committee in the new session as a permanent Select Committee. Without a Committee such as ours the Monetary Policy Committee would effectively cease to be accountable to one of the two Houses of Parliament."
	That proposal was supported in a paper submitted to us by Lord Peston, Chairman of the Committee.
	THE IMPACT OF TUITION FEES ON STUDENT RECRUITMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
	3. Lord Rix submitted a paper to us proposing the appointment of a select committee on the impact of fees on student recruitment in higher education. He noted that the number of mature students applying for and entering higher education had fallen in 1999/2000 and suggested that a House of Lords committee could usefully seek evidence as to the nature and extent of the problem and propose means of tackling it.
	RECOMMENDATION
	4. Lord Rix's proposal relates to a topical subject in relation to which the House has a considerable body of expertise. On the other hand it is a subject which falls squarely within the terms of reference of the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, and we would not wish to risk duplicating the work of that Committee.
	5. We recognise the strength of the case for reappointing the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, but we are not at this stage persuaded of the case for a permanent sessional committee on that specific subject. A more broadly based Economic Committee might represent a more effective use of resources, and we propose to consider the matter further in due course.
	6. In the meantime we recommend that a further ad hoc Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England be appointed for a period of not more than a year, and we do not recommend the appointment of a committee on the impact of fees on student recruitment in higher education.
	FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
	7. We have before us proposals for a range of other select committee activity in the House:
	--The Government have announced proposals for Joint Committees on Human Rights and on House of Lords Reform.
	--The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has made a range of proposals for committee activity, some of them not necessarily dependent on further reform of the composition of the House.
	--These proposals include one for the appointment of a Constitutional Committee, supported in a submission made to us by Lord Alexander of Weedon.
	--The Royal Commission specifically referred back to us a proposal made to us a year ago by Lord Lester of Herne Hill for a committee to scrutinise treaties. We have postponed further examination of this proposal because the House of Commons Procedure Committee has just begun a short inquiry into Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties.
	--There are likely to be further proposals for the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills.
	8. The implementation of all these proposals would have long-term implications for the resources of the House - members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote.
	9. We propose, therefore, to undertake at our next meeting a general review of the House's committee activity, on the basis of a paper to be prepared for us by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, a number of projected changes are outlined in the report. Paragraph 8 states that,
	"The implementation of all these proposals would have long-term implications for the resources of the House--members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote".
	The committees will no doubt serve a useful function, but they are only one of a number of substantial changes currently taking place in your Lordships' House. All those changes will involve increasing expenditure. I wonder whether it is not time that the Chairman of Committees organised his relevant supporters in committees to have a look at the entire expenditure of the House.
	I have in the past drawn attention to what I regard as extravagances--among others, the resurfacing of the car park at the front of the building at a cost of £2.5 million when no one can see anything wrong with it. We are in a position where we are committed to expenditure without ever going back to look at it to see whether there are not some compensatory savings in the great changes which are to take place in the way in which the House operates.
	I ask the Chairman of Committees to consider the matter extremely seriously. We know what happens to such reports: once this report is approved, as it will be today, in future when a noble Lord challenges any aspect of it he will be told that the House has already approved it. The implications of more expenditure should be faced up to and we should be looking for compensatory savings elsewhere; otherwise, we shall be told, "You say that you have made yourselves more democratic, more legitimate and so forth, but look at the cost of it". There will be people in tabloid papers and so on who would like to make a great meal of that point.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I welcome paragraph 6 of the report, where the House authorities--if I may put it that way--have accepted and recommended that the Select Committee on the Bank of England should be set up again. Perhaps I may first ask the Chairman of Committees why it has taken until now to do it, when it was quite clear that all sides of your Lordships' House, as long ago as November, had agreed that that should be done?
	Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am concerned about the implications referred to in paragraph 8, which I believe are more serious than the points raised by my noble friend. The committee seems to have the matter the wrong way round. It is important for your Lordships to decide which Select Committees are required and then to decide the necessary resources. One should bear in mind that the House spends far less than another place on important matters, such as Select Committees. That is the way that it should be done.
	When the general review referred to in paragraph 9 is considered on the basis of a report by the Clerk of the Parliaments, I ask the Chairman of Committees to ensure that the Clerk be clearly instructed that his report should be purely factual. I also ask that your Lordships' House decide which Select Committees are required in future on the basis of a report from the committee, and then decide on and find the resources available.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about paragraph 6 of the report, but only on the basis that half a loaf is, I suppose, better than a full one. I am sorry: a full loaf would be better than a half. This concerns one of the Government's major changes of policy. It is now common ground between all parties that the Monetary Policy Committee is the body that will determine the control of interest rates in the country. This is a long-term institutional change which will need to be kept under regular scrutiny.
	It has been said before--indeed, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged it when I raised the point on a previous occasion--that there is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships' House on the matters which fall within the purview of the Monetary Policy Committee. I find it astonishing that even now the Liaison Committee cannot see its way to establishing the Select Committee as a permanent part of the machinery of the House. Can the Chairman of Committees say whether this is just pending the consideration of the matters referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8, or are we going to have, as it were, a curious procedure whereby the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee will be reappointed every year as a one-off? I would regard that as a very unsatisfactory way of approaching what is an important function of the House.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, asked about paragraph 8 and related expenditure. Perhaps I may say, in answer both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who asked a question on a related point, that the principle on which the Liaison Committee, your Lordships' House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have proceeded in the past is that the first and most important consideration is the requirements of the House. It has been understood that if the House requires something to be done, steps will be taken to see that it can be done. But I have to say--I hope with the approval of your Lordships--that there are certain considerations dependent on that.
	First, the provision has to be made for any additional expenditure required to implement those proposals. Secondly, in providing for, for example, staff resources, there has to be time in order for any additional staff required to be appointed. We have always benefited in your Lordships' House from the high quality of our staff. One cannot necessarily recruit overnight additional members of staff of the high quality that we require. It takes a certain amount of time. Those are the two major restraints--the provision of money and the provision of staff--which clearly need to be satisfied before we can proceed. But the underlying principle--the noble Lord who made this point is quite right--is that the House decides what it would like to see implemented.
	The second point concerns the amount of time which has elapsed since the last ad hoc committee on monetary policy reported. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on the by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It was thought that it would be right for the Liaison Committee, in considering the proposal to reappoint the Monetary Policy Committee either on an ad hoc basis or on a permanent basis, to be in a position at least to give interim consideration to any relevant proposals which were made by the Royal Commission on the House of Lords. As one member of the Liaison Committee, I can say that that seems to be a prudent course to have taken. The committee itself therefore gave some preliminary consideration to those proposals, as your Lordships will have seen from the report.
	So far as concerns the future of any committee on monetary policy or a rather wider one, I simply point out that consideration was given to that matter at the meeting of the Liaison Committee and it appears in the report. Whether or not a recommendation is to be made to your Lordships in due course after the next Liaison Committee meeting--a recommendation, say, for the Monetary Policy Committee to be appointed on a permanent basis, or on a further ad hoc basis, or on a rather wider basis whereby it would be transformed into a wider economic committee--remains to be considered. It will be considered at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee. There was a good deal of sympathy for the idea that the Monetary Policy Committee should be continued, as can be seen from the report. There was, however, quite a strong body of opinion within the committee that the terms of reference of such a committee should be broadened in the way indicated. Some of the points made today are among the very ones which the Liaison Committee will consider when it returns to this matter at its meeting. Its next meeting will not be very long in coming.
	I hope that those points have done something to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords who have spoken. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Jenkin of Roding, for their thanks to the Liaison Committee. I shall certainly see to it that their thanks are passed on.

Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord use his good offices in a particular way? He has been very reassuring in saying that it is his view that the wishes of your Lordships' House should dominate decisions in these matters. However, I am sure he is aware that one of our problems is that we normally deal with the reports of the Liaison Committee and other committees immediately after Questions when all the pressure on us is, first, not to get up and, secondly, not to speak at any length. I feel that pressure on me at this very moment. Will the noble Lord at least use his very strong position of authority to speak to the usual channels and say that at some point we would not mind a debate on precisely what he says; namely, what it is that your Lordships would like to see done about committees and other related matters, including expenditure? If we had a fair amount of time, we could have a very constructive debate. But we never do have any time because everyone wants to get on with the next debate.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for the usual channels. They will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has had to say. I must confess, however, that on a number of occasions in the past I have not noticed any marked reticence on the part of certain of your Lordships. Indeed, I have been either the beneficiary or the victim of prolonged debates on some of these reports.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Rowntree Report

Earl Russell: rose to call attention to the Rowntree report on poverty and social exclusion, and to measures needed to reduce them; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, before he departs that I was not exhibiting the least impatience at his question. He has every right to request that business be in the proper place on the Order Paper and I am glad that he did so.

Noble Lords: He is not in his place.

Earl Russell: No doubt someone will convey my remarks to the noble Lord.
	The previous Rowntree report on this topic was debated in this House on St David's Day 1995 on a Motion moved from the Opposition Benches, then occupied by the Labour Party, by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It was a very good debate. I hope that it may do the same today. I am delighted by the range of speakers taking part in today's debate and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
	On the previous occasion, I referred to the report as describing an economy that did not bat below number seven. I am slightly disappointed to say that I see no reason to revise that description when dealing with the new report, even though I speak in what is, internationally as well as nationally, a comparatively benign economic climate.
	If we take the Government's preferred poverty measure--those who are on below half average income--the graph is "flat". All through the period, the number affected is between 13 and 14 million. That is a considerable number of people. However, if we look slightly lower down at the much more interesting figure for those on below 40 per cent of average income, we see that during the period since 1995, before housing costs are taken into account, it has risen from 4.3 to 5 million. And after housing costs are taken into account, the rise is from 7.3 to 8.4 million. That is the waterline of the iceberg. It is as low as the statistics before the House enable us to see.
	I confess to a certain curiosity as to the dimensions of the lower portions of the iceberg. What proportions of people are on below 20 per cent of average income, below 10 per cent, or even, in some cases, below 5 per cent? Those kinds of figures are a great deal harder to discover than I should have wished.
	The figures in the report are part of a worldwide trend towards rising inequality, which is part of the way in which the global free market appears to be developing. So some of the causes are clearly international and not merely the responsibility of a British government of whatever political colour. However, the trend towards an increase in relative inequality has been going faster in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the developed world save New Zealand.
	We on these Benches believe that the trend has gone too far and that it is time it was put into reverse. We believe that for reasons of common humanity, for reasons of social justice, and for reasons of consent and social cohesion. In its day, the classic free market theory of Samuel Smiles involved the view that those who did well were being rewarded for hard work, skill and persistence. However, there have been several times in my life when I have made more money simply by occupying a London house doing nothing than I could ever do in what is not a badly paid job. I find it difficult to see the social justice in that.
	I am reminded of the pirate who was arrested by Alexander the Great and sentenced to death. He replied, "Because you do it with a great army and a great fleet, you are called a great emperor; because I do it with one ship, I am called a mean and contemptible pirate." When we consider the problem of fraud on social security, we may wonder whether some of the people with whom we are dealing may possibly reason in that way, and indeed whether they might occasionally have a little excuse if they do.
	Most of all, I am concerned about the trend towards rising inequality for reasons of economic competitiveness. That may possibly surprise some noble Lords. We are used to thinking of economic competitiveness as consisting simply of cheapness--cheapness of price to the purchaser and cheapness of the overall social security bill to the taxpayer. It is true that those are indices of competitiveness, and strong ones when taken in isolation. But nothing does happen in isolation in this world. Competition happens in other ways as well, which may sometimes point in other directions.
	We have an interest, for example, in having a supply of labour consisting of members of a fit and healthy potential workforce. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, whose province this is, will be discussing the problem of poverty and ill health. I look forward very much to hearing his remarks. We have an interest in having an orderly and safe environment. The consequences of real poverty for the budget of the police and prisons and people's overall sense of safety can be serious. Let us think only of the conditions in the more insalubrious parts of Rio de Janeiro. They are clearly a drag on Brazil's economic problems. Labour is one of the raw materials of business. Like other raw materials, if not safely warehoused when in use, it deteriorates. That is an extremely expensive process.
	The problem of real, deep poverty is being missed by the concentration in the Government's audit of poverty on those below 50 per cent of average income. It encourages them to lift off the top, if I may so put it--the richest of the poor--and leave the rest alone. The reality is that the worst damage done by poverty is likely to be to those at the bottom of the poverty scale, not at the top of it.
	There are two problems: one of relative inequality; the other of absolute poverty. For absolute poverty, we can well take as a working definition that used in the Acheson report; namely, having insufficient money to buy items and services necessary to good health. I shall not debate whether absolute poverty or relative inequality is the more important to put right. The question I want to address is: which is the more urgent? If you are involved in a train crash, it is not easy to decide whether it is more important to rescue the victims or to investigate the signals. It is apples and oranges. But it is perfectly clear which is the more urgent.
	So I wish that the Government were doing more than they are to address the question of absolute poverty. I wish they were doing more to mend the holes that existed in the safety net at the time they came into office. There are whole categories of people--16 and 17 year-olds and asylum seekers, for example--who are disentitled to benefit. There is the problem of penal disentitlement to benefit as under the "actively seeking work" rules, the benefit penalties under the CSA, and, it is now proposed, for breach of community service orders.
	There are two perfectly valid moral principles in this issue. Both are recognised as valid throughout these Benches. One is that people should not be paid benefits for doing nothing; the other is that we should not reduce people to total destitution such as we should not even inflict on prisoners. Which of those principles should take priority in any particular case can properly be referred to evidence. So we want to see, before we approve any more measures of disentitlement to benefit, real, genuine research on what actually happens to people who are totally disentitled to benefit and how they make their living.
	There are also cases where the benefits system malfunctions. The Minister will recall giving a helpful Answer to me regarding DETR and DSS research on housing benefit. There are large numbers of people whose benefit fails to meet their rent, sometimes by as much as £50 a week. Many of those have taken to borrowing. It is a matter of regret to me, as it has been for a long time, that the DSS does no research on the level of debt among those on social security benefit. It is missing some cases of quite severe hardship. As the Minister well knows, the number of deaths from hypothermia is higher in this country than anywhere else in the EU, even including Sweden and Finland. My noble friend Lord Ezra, whose province this is, will speak about fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. I look forward to what he says with great interest.
	We have a very high level of teenage suicides. The reduction in the number is a health target. The absolute number has gone down but the percentage of the age group has not. I should like to know what percentage of those teenagers who committed suicide were without visible means of support at the time they did it. I tabled a Question for Written Answer a few weeks ago and the Minister told me that the information was not available. There is a lack of curiousness in this area and some defect in government records.
	The Minister will recall that I asked another Question; namely, how many 16 and 17 year-olds without work, training or education and living independently were without any source of income. The Minister told me that there were none, whereas both the Rowntree report and the report of the Children's Society, which is still running, are aware of considerable numbers of such cases. I believe that what the Minister tells me is that such cases do not appear in government records, which are defective, rather than that it does not happen. If the noble Baroness refers back to her Written Answers to me since the beginning of January she will see that pattern repeated a good many times.
	We must also think quite hard about the problem of benefit levels, especially in the light of the findings of the Acheson report that they are insufficient to maintain good health. We touched on this matter last night when debating the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. It was agreed, without advocating going back to linking benefits to earnings, that if one does not do so from time to time one has to uprate above prices as resources allow to avoid the development of rapidly increasing inequality. We believe that resources would allow for that this year. I do not know why the Government do not do it.
	There is evidence, of which I hope we shall hear more in the debate, of significant food poverty. In parts of this country mortality is 10 per cent above the average. A great many cases occur in areas of London, including I am interested to note, the London Borough of Islington. These are pockets of poverty. There is severe poverty among pensioners, as the Minister will concede, for which the Government offer only 75p and the minimum income guarantee. I do not have quite as much faith in the minimum income guarantee, except as a device in debates, as Ministers do. If the Minister can give me any reason to change my mind about that, I shall listen with very great care and attention.
	At the same time, the Government pay far less attention than they might to the real barriers to employment; for example, age discrimination. This applies to both youth and age. Eighteen per cent of males under 25 are unemployed. That is a statistic that should worry us when looking at the funding of pensions as well as the present state of youth. Anyone over the age of 45 who loses a job has a very poor chance of returning to employment. My noble friend Lady Barker, whose province this is, will speak to that, and I very much look forward to hearing her.
	Perhaps one of the worst barriers to employment is race. I have just quoted the figure for young male unemployment, which is 18 per cent. The figure for black young males under 25 is 51 per cent nation-wide and 62 per cent in London. We should be ashamed of that figure. When I observe that young black males are seven times more likely to be in prison than young white males, I am tempted to entertain the hypothesis that those two figures are connected. The prison budget is about as expensive a substitute for social security as we could pick.
	In rural areas in particular probably the biggest barrier to employment is transport. In Falmouth and Camborne, to take just one example among many, people on income support--which in normal times is hard enough to live on--attempt to continue to run cars because as soon as they sell them they become unemployable. This suggests that savings on rural transport may turn out to be exceedingly expensive in the long run. Two of my noble friends will speak to that point, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, from a general rural point of view, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw from the point of view of a general transport specialist. These points need more attention than any government have yet given them.
	Some actions that have been taken by the Government are good. We welcome the increases in child benefit and the minimum wage. We would welcome them even more if the Government committed themselves to regular uprating. But I am perturbed by the way that the Government tend, in their language, to denigrate social security benefits. In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on the subject of benefit levels during Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Minister accused him of poverty of aspiration. I have checked the quotation and I can show it to the noble Baroness later. On 18th July the Secretary of State, speaking in Newham, said that,
	"a giro can't get you a job, or improve your skills or prospects. That's why we're reforming the benefit system".
	I regard that as a non sequitur. It is not the purpose of the benefits system to create jobs but to keep people fit and well until there are jobs to which they can return. If the Minister disagrees I look forward with great interest to finding out why. I have never had a coherent explanation of it, and perhaps I am about to get one.
	In a Written Answer about the cost of restoring benefit to 16 and 17 year-olds, the Minister treated me to the following homily, which incidentally was not part of the Question:
	"We believe that every young person should have the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is why our aim is to engage 16 and 17 year-olds in education, training or work with training, rather than starting their adult lives dependent on the benefits system".--[Official Report, 11/1/00; col. WA 113.]
	I take exception to the words "rather than" in that response. Like the Children's Society, we believe that people without benefits tend to adopt what are called risky survival strategies which may severely hamper their prospects of returning to the labour force. We believe that benefits should be seen as a springboard to returning to the labour market rather than as an obstacle to it, and that the denigration of benefits is thoroughly unhelpful and, at its worst, potentially Clintonian. Above all, this is a problem in particular areas that are left behind like rock pools by the retreating tide. I refer to areas which are being stripped of services and facilities. As one of the members of our working group, a councillor from Meadow Well, Newcastle, said:
	"Disadvantages tend to hunt in packs".
	We are entering into a competition between rural and urban poverty. What strikes me is how much the problem is the same: the closure of the corner shop, the post office, the bank, the benefits office, the hospital, the magistrates' court, the police station and perhaps the school. One after another the things that make an area live are closed down.
	We cannot all live literally in Middle England on the M.4 corridor. The Deputy Prime Minister knows what the problems are. We need to do something to get the people, houses and jobs in the same places. In that context the failure to provide matching funds for objective work is a serious mistake; and that, rather than tinkering with the benefits system to make it more unattractive, is the area where we should be looking for a solution. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the numbers and range of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today are ample evidence of how grateful the House is to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic today. It is a privilege to be the first to thank him.
	We are especially grateful to the noble Earl because many of us remember the not too distant past when we were not encouraged to discuss such a topic. We were especially not encouraged to make the connections--many of us know from our work outside the House that they are inescapable--between poverty and poor health, poverty and under-achievement in education, poverty and crime, and poverty and mental illness and family breakdown.
	We now not only understand the significance of those connections; we are encouraged to address them. I cannot speak in a debate such as this without acknowledging the commitment of this Government to tackling poverty and working towards the ambitious target of cutting by half in 10 years the number of poor children in our society, currently estimated at 4 million; and ensuring that in 20 years no child lives in a poor household.
	We can debate--no doubt we shall--whether that is a reasonable and achievable aim, or whether we should expect that the poor will always be with us. However, in my limited time today I want to focus on the second part of the Motion: on measures needed to reduce poverty and social exclusion. The noble Earl set out clearly some large-scale and extremely significant measures which he believes are necessary. I want to focus on much smaller-scale developments which are already under way, and to talk about some of the practical ways in which lottery money is being used through the New Opportunities Fund, which I chair, to address some aspects of social exclusion and to make a real difference to disadvantaged individuals and communities in the areas of health education and the environment.
	I take first education. Sustainable policy for abolishing child poverty could not possibly be based only on paying more generous benefits, vitally important though those are. The strategy has also to increase the number of parents in work or at least to reduce the time they spend out of work. Clearly the New Deal, the minimum wage, and the working families' tax credit--I am sure many noble Lords will mention those--are vital parts of this strategy. But the New Opportunities Fund is also working to making an important contribution through our out of school hours childcare and our out of school hours learning initiatives.
	Our childcare initiative, which aims to create more than 800,000 new childcare places, has thus far spent £17 million, almost all of it in disadvantaged areas, on schemes which create such activities as breakfast clubs, after-school places and holiday places which will enable parents to take advantage of the work opportunities on offer, secure in the knowledge that their children are well cared for.
	Our out of school hours learning activities, on which we have thus far spent £27 million, include schemes like the one in the north-west where £0.75 million will benefit children in 38 schools in the Trafford area with holiday activity schemes, after-school sports, and cultural activities. In the north-east we spent £320,000 on setting up a study support system in 16 schools to enable children from socially deprived areas, who perhaps do not have the opportunity at home, to do their homework; and other forms of study to develop self confidence and improve their ability to learn.
	Nor are all the education initiatives confined to the younger age groups. Our community access to lifelong learning initiative aims to encourage adults into learning with a particular emphasis on improving access to learning opportunities through information and communications technology. The evidence shows that the better off in society have greater access to the new technologies. There is a danger that we shall create a split between the information "haves" and "have-nots". The sum of £200 million of New Opportunities Fund money will help to minimise that split.
	As regards health, the connection between poverty and poor health is well established. So our healthy living centre initiative aims to develop a network of healthy living centres across the United Kingdom which within five years will be accessible to 20 per cent of the most disadvantaged people in society. We have £300 million for that initiative; and healthy living centres will address important factors such as social exclusion, mental health, and poor access to services. They can include community cafes, exercise, counselling training classes, credit unions and health promotion activities.
	Our cancer initiative has included purchasing diagnostic equipment for areas which are disadvantaged and a "living with cancer" initiative which is predominantly targeted at black and minority ethnic communities, and those which are socially and economically deprived. Many of us who live in areas where there is a well developed voluntary sector have benefited from local fundraising activities for such equipment and services. Again, the New Opportunities Fund aims to redress that balance for the poorest in society.
	In the environment, too, we are working to make a difference. Why should poor communities have less access to green spaces and playing fields, or fewer safe areas for children to play in? The sum of £125 million will go to projects which help to develop such access.
	I make no apology for the use of lottery money to target directly the needs of disadvantaged and socially excluded people for the purposes of this debate. Ask any average person buying his lottery ticket on a Saturday and that is what he says he wants the money spent on. Moreover, there is some evidence that previous types of lottery distribution have been unfairly skewed towards the "haves" in society because those areas are more likely to get their act together to make an adequate application. Again, the New Opportunities Fund is working in a different kind of arena.
	All our initiatives are strictly evaluated to assess the impact they have on social exclusion agendas. We are willing to experiment, to break new ground. Therefore, I expect that not all the projects will fulfil expectations. Overall, I am confident that this initiative and the New Opportunities Fund idea will be clear evidence that a difference can be made and that socially excluded individuals and communities can be given new opportunities.
	I emphasise that the money spent by the fund is strictly additional to, and not a substitute for, statutory funding. We may have £2 billion to spend, but that is marginal money when addressing the needs of the nation. None the less, by addressing the needs of those who are most disadvantaged in society, by encouraging community participation, and by complementing local and national strategies and programmes, I believe that we can make a difference to the quality of life for some of those people. The key point is that we must all be working together--government at national and local level, charities, the private sector, and local communities--to address the major problems of poverty which we shall no doubt highlight in our debate today. No one would doubt that there is a long way to go, but neither should anyone doubt that we have made a start.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate in such a serious, sensitive and thoughtful way--the style to which this House has become accustomed. Unlike the noble Earl, I cannot speak on all aspects of the report. I hope that the House will forgive me if many of my comments concentrate on the rural perspective, although all the comments apply to rural and urban aspects of daily living.
	I believe that in the early days social exclusion was assumed to be urban centred. An attempt to define it was based on mean streets, a lifetime of unemployment, violence, brutality, illiteracy and the many other Dickensian story-lines about which we know so much. It has now been recognised that social exclusion also affects people living in the countryside. The Cabinet Office report Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in the Countryside, published earlier this month, testifies to that.
	I have studied the Cabinet Office report and the Rowntree report and wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a number of implicit assumptions with which I am not comfortable. The Prime Minister, during his recent visit to South Wales, used some of these to publicise recent results from surveys that underpin the Cabinet report. Paramount among these was that 71 per cent of the respondents believe that the quality of life is better in the countryside than elsewhere. A breakdown of what this meant found that 68 per cent of the rural sample considered that their own area has a lot of community spirit compared with 43 per cent who felt that within the urban setting.
	These figures hide trends that are somewhat alarming and do not bode well for the continued appreciation of rural lifestyles. The people who work and provide the community spirit anywhere are those who are willing to work and to care for others without thought of reward for themselves. Into this category come the neighbour who every day collects a newspaper for an elderly person, and then, most importantly, stays for a chat; those who serve on the parish council; those who visit the sick; those who shop for the housebound; and so on. We all know of them, whether in the city or in the countryside. All the evidence is that in rural areas the average age of those volunteers is rapidly increasing and that their numbers are fewer.
	One reason for that is that younger people of both sexes now go out to work to earn money and are often out of the community for eight to 10 hours during Monday to Friday. Another reason is that more four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses are built in the countryside, barns are converted, or two cottages are knocked together, and the buyers come from urban areas. They move house, but they do not leave their work or necessarily the school; nor do they change their interests. Such people may well spend 10 hours of each day away from the rural area. They simply do not have the time to do things for others in the vicinity of their own homes. These people can see the community spirit at work and they genuinely value it. What they do not see is that they need to contribute to it for it to be there in the future.
	To make things worse, the foundations of the rural way of life are being eroded. I have read recently in the book Devil's Advocate by John Humphreys the passage where he states that Sir Donald Acheson said that it is now impossible for many of the poorest people in this country to get cheap varied food because the local shops are shutting while supermarkets move out of town. He also says that while the number of food superstores rose from 432 in 1986 to 1,034 in 1996, the number of small grocery shops fell by 50,000 in that same period. The closure of small shops applies as much to villages as to the inner cities.
	Agriculture has been responsible for our basic food requirements and for much of the shaping and upkeep of our countryside. Agriculture has had to bear the costs of new hygiene practices in our abattoirs, of the animal welfare rules introduced by successive governments and of the consequences of problems such as BSE and bovine TB. I know that some will say that there is compensation. There is, but it covers only the bare minimum and not the knock-on effects of many of these problems.
	The principal result is that farm incomes have fallen heavily since 1997. They have fallen from an average of £18,000-plus in 1996 to a mere £4,500 in 1999. During his farm visit to the south-west, the Prime Minister was shown accounts from one farm that revealed that the farmer's pay last year amounted to 33 pence per hour, somewhat below the average minimum wage.
	Farmers are going out of business and, of those who remain, many have stopped investing further in their businesses. This, in turn, renders them less competitive, which means that their share of the market drops, which means that their income drops, and so on, as we know. Even more importantly, as their income falls so their share of the national cake falls. Various researchers, writers of reports, devisers of policy start saying that they are of diminishing importance because they already account for less than X per cent of national income. Even so, they receive a smaller share of government support, become less competitive and their incomes fall further. At page 32 of the Cabinet Office report this is illustrated well. Primary sector farming now contributes only one per cent of total UK GDP. Agriculture employs over half a million people and is the mainstay of the food chain, contributing approximately £55 billion--about nine per cent--of UK GDP.
	At some point every year, including this last year, some 20,000 people decide to leave farming earlier than they had planned to. Many of them do so with little or no money, no pensions or nest eggs. Tenant farmers are the most vulnerable. These are the very people who have been at the centre of their village communities and supporters of those important aspects of community life which others seek.
	Will the Minister tell us how many ex-farmers under 50 years of age, and how many over 50, have been successfully retrained for life and for a job in an urban environment?
	In case anyone thinks that my vision might be blinkered, I turn to the Rowntree report and to the startling discovery on page 12 that the number of people with less than 40 per cent of average income, who are the very poorest, is rising and 10 per cent of all those households have an income of £132 per week or less. It is pointed out further on in the report at page 79 that one-fifth of the poorest households do not have any type of bank or building society account.
	Will the Minister explain how these households are to receive benefits when the Government have arranged for electronic transfer of funds directly into said non-existent banks and building societies, and perhaps post offices?
	I have also looked at the figures on incomes generally. I find that 29.1 per cent of the rural population is over pensionable age compared with only 18.2 per cent in the urban areas. Agricultural workers are not noted for amassing large pension funds. It is a fair bet that the pension income for those who have lived and worked in the countryside mirrors that from earnings. Most of the rural areas return lower average incomes than their regional urban counterparts.
	Concern is being expressed not only by people who live in rural areas but also by those who represent them at local government level. Last September the Rural Services Partnership called for a rural task force and asked for a joined up approach to rural poverty, public services and employment. Local government spending in rural areas is £716 per head compared with £1,208 in urban areas.
	I am surprised that the Rowntree report does not have any figures on empty houses, though it does note on page 85 that the number of households in temporary accommodation, which fell steadily from 1992 to 1997, rose sharply again in 1998 and 1999. This implies that, once again, there is a need for landlords of all types to renovate their stock. In that context, can the Minister confirm the newspaper reports of yesterday that the Government propose to reduce or eliminate VAT on repair work and levy it on new build? Can the Minister also tell us how many houses owned by local government are currently empty and what proportion could be brought back into the market-place were they renovated?
	My allocated time is almost at an end. I should draw your Lordships' attention to a worrying report in today's newspaper that Blair's poverty policy is in chaos. I am sure that the Minister will know of it. A damning Cabinet Office report to be published today concludes that a multi-million pound drive to improve Britain's most deprived areas is descending into chaos because there is too little co-ordination between departments. At a time when every penny is needed to help those in greatest need, surely we can get our act together.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, we all know of and respect the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in this field and I am grateful to him for drawing the Rowntree report to our attention today. I intend to concentrate upon a group of individuals who are spread across the whole age range of this report. They are men, women and children who are suffering from what are categorised as illnesses with "ill-defined symptoms". Among them are CFS/ME, multiple chemical sensitivity, Gulf War illnesses, fibromyalgia, sheep dip poisoning and irritable bowel syndrome. The severity of their symptoms fluctuates from day to day.
	I have spoken about the predicament of these people on many occasions in your Lordships' House but never in this context. Prevailing medical opinion has it that their illnesses are the result of "functional somatisation". As I understand it, this definition may be loosely translated in this way: these patients have a personality defect that leads them to complain of physical symptoms in order to obtain sympathy and attention. Prevailing medical advice is that once known causal factors for the symptoms are eliminated, there is no point in doing further clinical investigation. Some leading psychiatrists are of the opinion that the best way to treat patients is with antidepressants, cognitive behaviour therapy and, in the case of CFS/ME patients, graded exercise.
	There is very little sound evidence that this regime is effective. In fact, it has been criticised severely by researchers outside the UK. Patients who attempt and fail in this regime or who, having heard of its unfavourable results and refuse treatment, are effectively branded as frauds. As a result, they are all too frequently stigmatised and become socially excluded.
	I am not aware of any UK studies that have looked at the quality of life of people with CFS/ME. I do have papers relating to one study from the USA and another from Australia. The American paper found that:
	"Over-all scores on the quality of life index were significantly lower in CFS than for other chronic illness groups";
	and that:
	"The findings suggest that the quality of life is particularly and uniquely disrupted in CFS".
	In the Australian paper the researchers found:
	"Results from both the SIP [Sickness Impact Profile] and the interview revealed that CFS subjects had significantly impaired quality of life, especially in areas of social functioning. These findings highlight the importance of addressing the social isolation and loss of role functioning experienced by CFS sufferers".
	My extensive contacts with sufferers from all the illnesses I have mentioned gives me the distinct impression that CFS sufferers are not alone in their plight. As successive Ministers for the Department of Health and the noble Baroness the Minister know only too well, for they have to respond to some of my letters, there are many in the community who are deprived of treatment, social services support and social security benefits. These people are not whingers and spongers. Many are seriously ill. The Australian study found that:
	"Forty-six of 47 patients diagnosed with CFS were classified as having severe illness impairment, independent of their age, sex, education level or length of their illness. It is noteworthy that this degree of impairment, as reflected by overall SIP scores, is more extreme than the over-all impairment reported by patients with untreated hyperthyroidism, end-stage renal disease and heart disease ... it is also more extreme than the over-all levels of impairment reported by a comparable group of MS sufferers".
	Let us not forget that between the two world wars MS sufferers were branded as suffering from a lazy man syndrome.
	The American study of 110 subjects found that:
	"All participants related profound and multiple losses, including loss of jobs, relationships, financial security, future plans, daily routines, hobbies, stamina and spontaneity, and even their sense of self because of CFS".
	I have a large folder of case histories. Patients, parents and doctors write to me in a desperate attempt to obtain recognition and help. They ask what they must do to obtain funding for treatment outside the NHS when they know from experience that the treatment works, but they have exhausted their private funds or their health authority or GP has withdrawn funding.
	I had just such a letter today. This lady has been a patient at the Breakspear Hospital for 20 years. She suffers food and chemical sensitivities and is acutely sensitive to drugs. The treatment has enabled her to function socially and in the home. For seven years West Sussex Health Authority paid £2,000 a year towards her treatment costs, which amount to about £5,000. The balance she has found herself. Despite the support she has from her GP, the health authority has now withdrawn its support, citing among other factors a shortfall in its finances.
	Over the years she has been referred to innumerable consultants who, her GP states, "have failed to help her in any way". He has reminded the health authority that the effects of her illness mean that, without treatment, she is a suicide risk. I shall be writing to the Minister's noble friend about this.
	The noble Earl spoke about suicides and we know that the suicide rate among farmers is extremely high. There is anecdotal evidence of many suicides among ME sufferers and Gulf War veterans. Are there statistics which link the illness of the patient prior to the suicide with the actual suicide? I know that suicides are listed by occupation, but I wonder whether there is any other information about them.
	The noble Baroness may recall that I have written to her on many occasions about social security clients who are made to travel long distances to attend Benefit Agency offices, medical examinations and appeal tribunals. Even after going through all the hoops at great personal financial and physical cost, these people are deprived of their benefits and are told that they must seek employment. What employer would even consider taking on a person who does not know from one day to the next how much he will be able to do? I have also written to the noble Baroness about Gulf War veterans who are having difficulty with their war pensions and other social security benefits.
	While I know that the noble Baroness is a kind and sympathetic person and that she tries to be as helpful as possible, I have now stopped being surprised by the chilly responses I receive. Her colleagues in the Department of Health are aware that there are parents who are being accused of exhibiting Munchausen's syndrome by proxy because they refuse to force their children to undergo the recommended regime; that these children are placed on the "at risk" register; made wards of court and forced to undergo what is, to my mind, a barbaric course of cognitive behaviour therapy and exercise. She must know of the children who are isolated at home, missing out on their schooling and contact with friends because their illness is not recognised.
	Fortunately, there are some medical practitioners and researchers who are not, to use current language, "on message". They are conducting in-depth clinical examinations of patients who present with multiple symptoms. They are finding organic causes for those symptoms. Some are finding clear causal relationships between exposure to a variety of chemical and biological toxins and the development of illness. Others are successfully treating patients with a variety of complementary medical procedures. Unfortunately, too often they are either ignored or denigrated by those who prefer the "quick fix" of a psychiatric diagnosis. It seems that nobody will listen to them or to their patients.
	Despite the assurances given by the director of the Benefits Agency Medical Services that all their doctors are trained to recognise these illnesses and that they are aware of the fluctuating nature of the symptoms, it is clear that some of these doctors are not following the guidelines. As a result, sick individuals find that they are not believed by relatives and friends or by their GPs. They struggle to exist in a social vacuum on minimal incomes and little, if any, medical support.
	While I am aware that there is a task force in the Department of Health looking at ME/CFS, I ask the Minister to recognise the plight of all the men, women and children who fall victim to these illnesses and to work with her colleagues, to listen to, and actually hear, the sufferers and their professional carers and to examine all the means of lifting from them the stigma of social exclusion.
	I speak from the heart. Noble Lords will know that I suffer from organophosphate poisoning. I spent two years being socially excluded. Fortunately, I have good friends and other helpful people. I have been treated and have recovered. I believe that I am now making a useful contribution to society. There are hundreds of people in the world who could make a similar contribution and I ask the noble Baroness to listen.

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity of addressing the persistent evils of poverty and social exclusion in our society. Few of us can match his style, but we all share his passion. Indeed, the speech we have just heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, came from the heart and touched us all.
	We want to eradicate from our society poverty, social exclusion and all that they mean. I hope very much that that will help us to rise above any party differences because we shall only tackle these problems as a nation, knowing what evils they represent in our midst.
	The factors of social exclusion are those which I encounter many times a week during my work in the north-east. Only last Sunday night, I helped to inaugurate an imaginative regeneration scheme in Pallion, one of the worst hit areas which suffered as a result of the closure of the Wearside dockyards. For a decade, Pallion has exhibited all the facets of a forgotten area which are itemised in the Rowntree report. Now, however, thanks to a £10 million grant from the fifth phase of the Social Regeneration Project, hope is beginning to return. Through the partnership of Sunderland City Council, the police and the social agencies and, indeed, the voluntary agencies, the local people are becoming involved in a number of projects which will help to make Pallion once again a hospitable place in which to live.
	In particular, I commend an initiative undertaken by the local police, who have taken a room in the local school as a kind of mini police station. It is not a part of the school, but because they are there it is breeding confidence and a sense of security for the mothers who come to the school gate and for many of the children who attend the school.
	A moment ago I emphasised the voluntary sector because the Churches are at the forefront of developing buildings and energising people. A family centre and a resource for the mentally handicapped are being planned in and around the parish church. All this and more is made possible because of what the Government are currently offering. We must commend that and recognise it.
	Perhaps I may now turn to another estate in my diocese, that of Norton Grange in Stockton-on-Tees. Here I find, helped by another piece of research from the Rowntree Foundation, that some years down the line from a major input provided by Stockton City Challenge, conditions are still woefully inadequate. There remains a feeling of insecurity, of social stigmatism, of deterioration of the built environment; there is also lack of local consultation and a divide between those long established on the estate and those who are newcomers. That social divide is something that I have found on many different kinds of estates. It is evident that people still feel unprotected by the police, are denied participation in the labour market and do not have equal educational opportunities. Furthermore, because they are stigmatised over where they live, they do not have access to credit and other services which the rest of us take for granted. Those factors help to define what social exclusion is all about.
	As the Rowntree report highlights, social exclusion is made up of a combination of factors which include jobs, safety, housing, health, education and, most importantly, the participation of local people in decisions about their own futures. The Rowntree report comes at a time when 1999 data are not yet available and the impact of recently introduced government programmes such as the minimum wage and families' tax credit are not yet known. We must give the Government credit for introducing a range of measures which target poverty and social exclusion. We hope to see the results of those measures in future surveys. However, for now, we must remain vigilant about the suffering which is caused when 20 per cent of the population of a western nation that is currently prospering still live on incomes below half the national average and the number of people below 40 per cent of national average income has risen by over 1 million.
	The Government will know that in the public, private and voluntary sectors, there are high expectations. Change must come and evidence of delivery will be demanded. For now, I look to the Government for reassurances on three fronts. First, I hope that, if noble Lords will forgive the language, the Government might get their act together in presenting their initiatives in a coherent way. There is some evidence that time and money are being wasted by fragmentation and duplication of effort between departments. I know that some local authorities are confused and frustrated by having to apply to different departments for help on different aspects of the same project. If that is true of local authority departments, how much more difficult must it be for small voluntary groups?
	Secondly, will the Government encourage the regions to look at all their deprived areas in a co-ordinated fashion? Housing estates are not islands. They relate strongly to the economic and social factors within the whole region. If one looks at the map published by the DETR showing the 44 most deprived local authorities, it is clear that they cluster primarily into four regions: London, the West Midlands, the north-west and the north-east. I know that regional development agencies are designed to bring about a regional response, but they are driven by economics and perceived by ordinary people who are suffering the most to be remote bodies. The RDAs need to be part of a democratically elected regional assembly which can bring together all the different factors of a region. It is no accident that the four most deprived regions are now the ones which are most strongly campaigning for devolution in the English regions, which will provide cohesion and make the work of local authorities more decisive and more straightforward. Will this element of devolution continue to find a place in the Labour Party manifesto as it is prepared for the next general election?
	Thirdly, will the Government underline their faith in the voluntary sector as playing a significant part in tackling social exclusion? According to the Rowntree report, the cost of bringing everyone up to the current level of half the national average income is only around 1 per cent of GDP. So, presumably, it could be tackled. However, in this House we know that the problem is not only one of money; it also concerns how to target taxes and benefits with the minimum of stigma and disincentives at the same time. In other words, it concerns human dignity as much as it concerns money. It is about enabling people to believe in themselves and know that they have a part to play in the processes of change.
	The voluntary agencies, and not least the Churches, are close to the people. They know what engages them, what will lift their heads and what will put a smile back on their faces. Most often, the voluntary agencies are the local people, catching visions, sharing in the projects that are in place locally and putting a little more joy back into such communities. It is as they lift themselves up that much of the degradation that we see in certain parts of the housing estates of the kind I have described will be lifted. The voluntary sector welcomes the incentives recently introduced by the Government. It gladly plays its part in social regeneration programmes and it would be glad to have a reassurance that this partnership and encouragement will continue, along with perhaps a second look at the way in which Church buildings can be relieved of VAT.
	Those are my three questions concerning poverty and social exclusion: government coherence; regional response and voluntary participation. I believe that they are integral to meeting the problems addressed by the Rowntree report. I only hope that the Government will take encouragement from the whole of this debate and I look forward very much to their response.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate which was introduced by the noble Earl with his usual flair and erudition. Already, we have had some very interesting contributions covering a wide range of topics.
	It is clear from the report being debated that problems of poverty persist and, in some cases, have worsened. Among improvements have been the falling levels of unemployment, with fewer adults on means-tested benefits and higher attainments among 11 year-olds at school. Nevertheless, more than 2 million children live in a household where no adult has a paid job and 3 million live in households with below average income. Therefore, relative child poverty continues to exist. Among 16 to 17 year-olds there are still 160,000 in neither education, nor training, nor work. As for old people, some 1.3 million are dependent entirely on state provision, which is acknowledged to be inadequate.
	The Government have put in place policies designed to deal with some of those problems. We have the minimum wage, which has benefited some 2 million workers--mostly women. However, in my opinion it is set too low, even with the projected increase. There is the working families' tax credit but that, unfortunately, will not lift all working families out of poverty. There are the increases in child benefit. There is the Government's New Deal for the young unemployed, now extended to those aged 25 and over from April this year, and to be extended nationally to those aged 50 and over.
	The voluntary programme for lone parents is said by the Government to be working. Some 90,000 people have taken up the offer of an interview, and some 23,000 are said to have found jobs. As the Minister will know, I am critical of the Government's policies in relation to pensions. I support an immediate increase in the basic state pension above that promised this year. Pensioner poverty is still with us and, in my view, cannot be dealt with adequately by the private insurance industry. In the main, however, there have been some welcome developments.
	In advance of this debate, I received some most interesting briefing from an organisation known as the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. As many of your Lordships will know, that organisation has devoted much time and energy to campaigning for the Department of Social Security to research and set the minimum income necessary to sustain good health and cover essential needs. Until I received that briefing, I was not aware that many governments, in fact, set minimum income standards. The countries that do so include Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and even the US.
	The briefing I received points out that the absence of such a standard in this country impacts on a number of different government departments. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department should be concerned because magistrates have no minimum income standards against which to judge the level at which they should set fines. Sometimes that leads to imprisonment. Extensive poverty and survival-related crime fills the prisons with young men. An 18 to 25 year-old living at home with parents who are also on benefit does not have enough money to live on. If he has no job and becomes desperate for money, he sometimes turns to petty crime. If, for whatever reason, such young men refuse jobs or training, in a short time they will lose benefit. The result is that magistrates often face young men involved in petty crime with no money and no benefit from which to deduct a fine. The only punishment will be prison.
	At the end of the New Deal, what happens to those young people who apparently have not participated? I gather that at the end of November 1999 the destination of some 73,950 young people who had ceased to participate was unknown. What happens to the young people who fall out of the statistics in that way? Are we experiencing what the United States has experienced in relation to some of its workfare programmes, whereby people disappear from the statistics and reappear among the crime statistics?
	Many young women in poverty with inadequate benefits turn to prostitution. Asylum seekers receive only 90 per cent of income support. Therefore, the pressure on them to enter crime or prostitution increases. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is involved because there is a clash between local authority regulations which cover rent arrears, housing benefit and council tax enforcement on the one hand, and income poverty of benefits and low pay on the other.
	Problems exist in relation to council tax defaulters. Council officials habitually threaten defaulters with imprisonment. Most cases of defaulters never reach magistrates, who could reduce or remit debt on a hardship basis. At a magistrates' court the defaulter would have the right of representation if there was a risk of imprisonment. Rather than risk going to prison, the already impoverished defaulter borrows from licensed and unlicensed loan sharks at punitive interest rates. Repaying those rates out of inadequate benefits causes stress, ill health and sometimes suicide.
	As has already been said, there are approximately 1.5 million people on low pay or inadequate incomes who are outside financial services altogether. They rely entirely on door-to-door money lenders who charge punitive rates. Their legal rights are thus reduced and their health is adversely affected in the pressure between law on the one hand and poverty enforced by inadequate benefits on the other. Magistrates have no guidance about the level of income at which they should remit council tax arrears on grounds of income poverty. That has resulted in expensive and sometimes unlawful imprisonment initiated by local authorities. Over 400 appeals to the High Court have shown that magistrates have acted unlawfully by imprisoning defaulters.
	The shortage of affordable rented accommodation regularly causes stress in the life of the poor. That is particularly true of more affluent areas where, in conditions of economic boom, the price of living accommodation of almost any kind has rocketed beyond the reach even of many in stable employment. For the really poor, things can become quite desperate.
	The Department of Health is involved because cases of poverty and debt-related stress, disease and malnutrition flood hospitals and doctors' surgeries with poverty-related expenditure. Particularly serious is the evidence of the relationship between inadequate income and low birth weight, which can be followed by a lifetime of illness. The Department for Education and Employment feels the effects of poverty because there is a connection between poverty-related malnutrition and educational under-achievement.
	The Treasury is involved because eliminating income poverty would save the taxpayer money by eliminating some of the cost to which reference has already been made. There is no estimate available to government of the incomes from pregnancy to pension which are necessary to sustain good health and cover essential needs nor of the savings that could follow were such a minimum income standard established and put into practice.
	It is in the interests of all that poverty and the social exclusion that it causes should be eliminated from our society. That has been the standpoint of everyone who has spoken so far in the debate, and I believe that it is a view widely held throughout this House. The notion that minimum incomes, in and out of work, should be set at levels which will sustain good health and cover essential needs may assist in dealing with what appears to be a quite intractable problem, despite the policies now in place and the good intentions which I sincerely believe are held by the present Government. I acknowledge and support what has already been done. I understand that the problems inherited by the Government were substantial. I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the conclusion of the debate what other schemes the Government have in hand to deal with these very grave problems.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues this afternoon. In particular, I thank him for his opening remarks in which he reminded us that poverty is not a competition between rural and urban areas.
	Particularly in that context, I regretted somewhat the Prime Minister's remarks during his visit to the south-west when he suggested that, generally, life in rural areas was of a better quality than that in urban areas. I believe that imputed in his remarks was the sentiment that we should not worry too much about rural areas. I believe that his remarks, for example, suggesting that people live longer in rural areas, ignored the fact that they might live alone for decades with access to any services being very difficult. His remarks ignored young people and the fact that, although they are not represented in the homeless statistics, that may be because often they are sleeping on friends' floors.
	As a result of that kind of comment, I believe that it behoves the Government to consider developing minimum standards of access to services so that people in rural and, indeed, urban areas know what they can expect in relation to access to services and what, reasonably, they should be provided with, rather than being told that their quality of life is fairly good and that it is unreasonable to expect any better.
	One of the indicators in the Joseph Rowntree report that made me think particularly is that which shows how much less the poorest sections of society participate in social, political and community organisations, a point already highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. If the voice of those people were heard to a greater degree, it would be much harder to ignore their experience of life when making assessments of the quality of life. When we do not hear their voice, we fail to understand what has happened to the communities in which they live, which have become organised around those with plenty of money. The communities have become divided and the voice of those on low incomes is heard even less.
	I have a rural brief, so it will not surprise the House that this afternoon I shall talk about rural areas. I shall also do so because in rural areas the divide between rich and poor can be more stark than in suburban or urban areas. This was clearly illustrated in the Wiltshire study quoted in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on rural economies. It found that 40 per cent of the population in Wiltshire had incomes of under £8,000 and another 40 per cent had incomes of over £40,000.
	The situation is exacerbated by the fact that new housing in rural areas is extremely limited, and people with substantial incomes and the newly retired are choosing to move to rural areas, so that house prices increase in a way that bears little or no relationship to the availability of work or local wages; nor do they reflect the relationship with the availability of services, because people with larger incomes generally have access to cars or have cars of their own, at least until they become too old to drive.
	Rural transport is certainly a key issue. It will be well addressed this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, so I shall confine myself simply to saying that rural transport has been under-funded for years and its improvement is vital. There are still hundreds of parishes with no bus service and thousands with only one daily bus.
	But providing more rural transport will not be a total panacea. Even with a massive expansion, getting people to the services will prove difficult, if not impossible. With local services being closed down and people having to travel further and further to reach them, we need more imaginative solutions from the Government. I do not believe that transporting people to the services--sometimes it takes half a day by bus to go to the magistrates' court and back, or to the housing office and back--is a good solution. There may be far more imaginative ways of bringing such services to the smaller communities in rural England.
	The first way is through information and communication technology. But rural areas have a particular problem here: the fact that computer ownership is not wide and that the infrastructure is not in place. One has to live fairly near a telephone exchange to install an ISDN line, and there is a danger that rural areas will suffer again by being left out of the e-commerce revolution because they simply do not have the infrastructure to keep up.
	Service provision is also lacking in imagination because rural communities are not seen as needing a multi-functional place where services could be provided. I take the village hall as an example. When I use the words "village hall", I expect your Lordships imagine something with a corrugated roof, old loos and a basin with only a cold tap, and a kitchen with somebody's donated cooker and a tiny fridge, with nowhere to lay out cups for coffee. It is a really depressing picture. When I told a colleague this afternoon that I was going to talk about village halls, he said, "Oh, I wish you wouldn't". It is depressing, but is not that sad?
	In fact, what we find in communities where motivated people have got together to raise funds to modernise a hall, or to build a new one, is that it is rented out to many groups, it starts to gain an income of its own, it does not need constant repair and it is cheaper to heat. It also becomes regarded by external agencies--for example, the health authority--as a place where they can start to offer their own services. People meet there, learn there, receive services there and have fun there. There is then an increase in the voluntary spirit, which the Government recognise provides so much, because people come out from behind their front doors, gates and fences. They share their problems and begin to help each other with those problems in a way that cannot happen if there is no meeting place.
	So the question is: why have village halls been regarded as so unimportant by successive governments over the years? They are seen as charming, old-fashioned centres for tea and flower arranging clubs. I do not believe that even the present Government regard village halls as potential centres for a range of services and activities that could transform the life of the entire community. The recent Cabinet Office report, Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, mentions village and community halls only at the end, in a sub-paragraph when talking about the National Lottery, where it says that village halls and community centres help provide the cultural heart of the community.
	When I talk about imagination, it is because I think that in provision for rural areas we need some vision of what a multi-functional centre could provide. Halls could be used for senior citizens' clubs, mother and toddler groups, youth clubs, meals-on-wheels centres, a shop, an IT centre--all sorts of things. But halls cannot be used in that way if they are old, crumbling, roofed with asbestos and barely heated.
	The burdens now placed on volunteers running the halls are enormous. The right reverend Prelate mentioned VAT with regard to Church buildings. Until recently VAT on village halls could be reclaimed by parish councils. But then Customs & Excise called that a loophole and decided that village hall committees must pay. I understand that the average cost of village hall repairs is around £63,000, so having raised that money a committee will have to find another £11,000 for VAT. Imagine, my Lords, how many more jumble sales that represents. I believe that the Chancellor is reviewing charity taxation. It is an area that urgently needs to be addressed so that communities that raise their own funds are not taxed upon doing so.
	The National Lottery provides funding for village halls, but obtaining the funds is an exhausting process for volunteers, who often have to write different business plans for different parts of the Lottery. The Lottery needs to understand the value of the multi-functional hall and create a one form, one business plan approach that means that volunteers do not spend half their lives having to apply to different parts of the Lottery for different parts of their hall.
	I hope that the Government can address the potential for community buildings and for services to be delivered in communities with much more imagination, so that they can remove some of the difficulties that communities encounter in raising funds, and also encourage their agencies to think of taking the services out to such communities, instead of always transporting the people to the services in ever-distant sub-regional centres.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has done us all a service in drawing our attention to the Rowntree report in this formal way today. We thank him very much for that.
	Poverty and social exclusion continue to disfigure our country, even as we can prove that we live in an unprecedented era of peace and plenty. As our debate is about the have-nots, perhaps the House will bear with me if, to put that in context, I speak about the haves for about a quarter of a minute.
	There is no doubt that most people--I emphasise "most"--have seen their standard of living improve over the past three decades. In the period beginning with the start of Edward Heath's premiership and coming up to the present Government's period in office, we have seen household incomes double in Britain. Since 1955, household spending has increased by an average of 2.5 per cent per annum, a very powerful expression of the principle of compound interest.
	As I said, most but by no means all families in Britain have shared in that income growth. In 1970, only 35 per cent of households had a telephone. By 1998, 94 per cent of households had at least one telephone. In the past few years the number of households with a home computer has risen to one-third; and the average weekly household income in Britain today is about £400.
	However, our debate centres around the assertion that those averages of which I have just spoken of income growth disguise the very substantial inequalities in income distribution. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for bringing a little party politics into this. My accusation against the Conservative years of the 1980s and 1990s was not that the majority of the people in this country did not see an improvement in their lives and living standards but that the impoverished minority were neglected to a large extent and allowed to languish in benefit systems which did not give them routes out of poverty.
	The last government had enormous political energy which they chose to direct towards such areas as great privatisation and deregulation projects. Politics is all about choice and priorities. That was their choice. They did not choose to tackle an unreconstructed benefit system which did not assist in empowering the victims of two horrendous recessions out of poverty and into work and dignity.
	I believe that this Government have committed themselves to fighting poverty and social exclusion on a very wide range of fronts. As noble Lords said earlier in this debate, poverty is extremely wide ranging. We have had a fascinating debate so far about urban and rural poverty. Because of the wide-ranging nature of that poverty, that is the only way that the Government can tackle it.
	The Government's report Opportunity for All and the Rowntree report argue that poverty has multiple causes--poor housing, poor health, poor education, poor employment prospects, lack of opportunities. The causes as well as the effects must be tackled and it is right that Opportunity for All sets out specific standards against which the Government's performance in fighting poverty can be judged for all the stages of our lives--in childhood, in work and in old age.
	The Rowntree Report and Opportunity for All shock us with the scale and depth of poverty experienced at the beginning of the 21st century by millions of British people. My noble friends have alluded to some of those dreadful shock statistics. More than 2 million children are still living in households where there is no adult in paid work. That is a doubling of the figure since 1979. The numbers of people living in relative poverty more than doubled between the end of the 1970s and now, from 5 million to 14 million. One in four working-age adults has poor literacy and numeracy skills.
	I was certainly shocked recently by some of the RDA reports from the regions. As we know, the RDAs have all put forward their economic strategies. The figures on poor literacy and numeracy of young people in the regions is quite shocking if we are trying to regenerate our regional economies.
	We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe--seven times higher than that of Holland. More than one-third of single pensioners experience fuel poverty.
	So what is being done to challenge those sickening statistics both from Rowntree and the Government's Opportunity for All report? As the Minister will no doubt draw to our attention a little later, an enormous amount of government energy has gone into tackling the causes of poverty. Employment has risen by over 0.5 million since the general election. Employment is no longer one of the great political debates of our time. We almost think now that it is becoming normal to have high levels of unemployment. Youth unemployment is down by 60 per cent, although obviously the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave at the beginning of this debate are extremely sobering, particularly in relation to young black unemployed people. Unemployment is down by 50 per cent for long-term unemployed people since the general election.
	The working families' tax credit was introduced, as we know, in October 1999. There have been substantial increases in child benefit and income support for children. As a result of the 1998 and 1999 Budgets, the poorest one-fifth of families with children will gain more than £1,000 per year. The first national childcare strategy has been initiated, with a substantial budget attached to it. And, of course, the national minimum wage, as my noble friends have said, has helped nearly 2 million people, over two-thirds of whom are women.
	I wish to focus on the subject of poor women for the remainder of my contribution. While there is no doubt that women are a driving force in the new economy and the numbers of women in work have never been higher, the fact remains that women are also the largest group to experience poverty in Britain today.
	As chair of the Women's National Commission, I am aware that women constitute 70 per cent of the lowest earners and 56 per cent of adults living in poverty. The groups especially at risk are lone parents and single pensioners, the majority of whom are women.
	There is particular concern among women's NGOs that not enough recognition is given to the feminisation of poverty in Britain. While initiatives such as setting up the Social Exclusion Unit are to be welcomed, there should also be a far more embedded commitment to routinely disaggregated statistics on social exclusion by gender.
	There is also a need expressed by women's NGOs for information on the distribution of income within households so that a much clearer picture can be built up of the gender effects of poverty. Not all income in all households is of equal benefit to all the members of that household. In 1997, the Scottish Poverty Information Unit found through research that income received by men is less likely to be spent on children than income received by women. One does not need a lot of research to come to that conclusion but that research exists.
	That is particularly significant given the Government's emphasis on the redistribution of wealth through earning and tax credits rather than through welfare payments.
	Women's NGOs also want to see the New Deal for lone parents succeeding, for ultimately women, as the vast majority of lone parents, will benefit only from achieving economic independence and a sense of control over their lives for themselves and their families through access to good quality training and work. So many women's NGOs welcome the New Deal for lone parents and wish it well. The Government are aware that encouraging more people to come to that first interview, when the possibilities which are there for them can be explained, is one of the great challenges which I know the Minister is taking up with her usual determination and energy.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is no accident that three bishops are speaking in this debate, which I warmly welcome. I join with other speakers in expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the debate and, in particular, for his opening speech.
	A bishop is charged at his consecration to,
	"have a special care for the outcast and the needy".
	Poverty is a moral issue. It is a Kingdom of God issue. Most of us who are bishops know a good deal about poverty and social exclusion through our regular contacts with clergy in our inner cities, outer estates and deeply rural parishes and from our own visits to those places.
	Acute poverty and social exclusion have always existed in hidden pockets in the deep country. However, in the past two or three years, those problems have begun to bite much more deeply, especially in the marginal hill country of the north and west. They are becoming very serious indeed in parts of my diocese.
	I was glad to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in October last year to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I am glad, too, that that debate led to a meeting between the Government, in the person of the junior Minister in the other place, and representatives of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and the Family Budget Unit. However, I am not certain that the outcome of that meeting was that the Government read, learned, marked and inwardly digested everything that was shared with them. We welcome the Government's commitment in principle to eliminating child poverty and social exclusion and in getting unemployed people into real and sustainable jobs.
	We fully support the work of the Social Exclusion Unit in raising skills levels. That is absolutely critical. I echo the comments made in that regard. The West Midland RDA Survey revealed an alarmingly low skills level throughout the West Midlands. Raising self-esteem and involving communities in finding ways to help themselves are also important factors.
	I was glad to see mentioned in the report of Policy Action Team 9, part of a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal--perhaps that is a sign of the slightly more co-ordinated government for which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was looking--the vital part played by faith communities in regeneration at all levels. Such communities range from the National Inner Cities Religious Council to small groups in every single deprived locality where they and more often the Churches are working together.
	In my diocese the Churches have a notable record of achievement in the tougher parts of Telford. Next week I shall be meeting Church and community leaders to help plan a major regeneration project in the most deprived estate area of Hereford. That is a place in which I am glad to say there has been good initiative in convening consultation days. Local people have been invited to come together and say what they mind most about; what it is that hurts them most and what they most long to see changed in their communities.
	All that is good and encouraging. However, grave problems remain which cause immense misery, needless illness and premature death. The cause is, quite simply, income poverty, particularly for those who live on benefits for any length of time. They just do not have enough money to maintain proper health, let alone afford those modest items of expenditure which are essential for any degree of social inclusion: pursuing hobbies and interests; occasionally offering hospitality; occasionally going to the pub; or enabling children to take a proper part in school activities. For the very poor, survival is a desperate juggling act. Good health, especially that of children and pregnant mothers, is a frequent and costly casualty.
	Most of those unhappy facts are spelt out in the Rowntree report. The big statistic, to which at least three of your Lordships have referred, is the fact that the number of those living on less than 40 per cent of average income is rising dramatically. That is a striking and worrying statistic. We hope fervently that last year's changes; that is, the national minimum wage and the working families' tax credit, are beginning to turn the tide. However, some of the trends revealed in the Rowntree report are alarming.
	There is other evidence of the grim consequences of acute poverty. The NSPCC has evidence of a direct correlation between child abuse and the incidence of unemployment and debt. Infant mortality and morbidity are directly related to poverty. The Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy, to be published this month, contains this paragraph:
	"The research interviewers encountered examples of poverty and deprivation which they could hardly believe possible in late 20th century Britain. The striking association of absolute poverty with the risk of infant death remains as clear as when first described by Templeman in 1892".
	If an underweight and malnourished child survives, it will look forward to a lifetime disproportionately dogged by illness and cut short by premature death. The poor were dying younger in 1991 than in 1981. Unfortunately, in direct contrast to the general trend, Rowntree confirms that that difference still exists.
	It is shameful that 32 per cent of children in the United Kingdom live in families on less than half of average income. It is also shameful that we do not attempt to set a properly-calculated minimum income standard. In Denmark the comparative figure is 5 per cent; in France, 12 per cent; and in Germany, 16 per cent. All those countries calculate and pay a minimum income to families. The Government have so far consistently refused to examine the true needs of poor families and establish a rational and realistic level of benefits. I urge the Minister to look again at the work of the Family Budget Unit, which is academically rigorous and based on real prices of real commodities.
	Perhaps I may mention briefly two further facts about poor children which run counter to the general improving trend. First, they are twice as likely as children from families in social income groups 1, 2 or 3 to die in accidents. Secondly, their attainment levels in school declined while overall attainment levels were rising.
	Old people are suffering too from acute poverty. Rowntree points to the problem of excess winter deaths among old people getting worse. The help available to old people from social services to enable them to continue to live in their own houses is becoming less because of cuts in funding to social services.
	For families, there is the grim problem of debt. Rent or council tax arrears, or the absolute necessity to buy an urgently needed household object may mean borrowing from the hard-pressed social fund. That can lead to further deductions from an already inadequate benefit. Worse still is to borrow from the loan sharks whose dreadful rates of interest tighten the noose of poverty still further round the necks of those who fall victim to them.
	Perhaps I may make some practical suggestions. The poor cannot wait 20 years or even five years for the Government's grand design to be in place and working. We hope that it will be in place and working but the poor need help now. As mentioned by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, Rowntree wisely pointed to the need to target taxes and benefits with minimum stigma or disincentives. That is what matters. Such targeted help need not be unduly costly nor encourage further benefit dependency.
	I have already expressed the hope that the Minister will look again at the recommendations of the Family Budget Unit. Will she also undertake to consider four further areas of short-term action? I refer first to the return to a system whereby the cost of some urgently needed household items can be met by unrepayable grants, not by the loans at present available, if one is lucky, from the social fund. The availability of such loans is patchy from one part of the country to another.
	Secondly, will she consider the possibility of pregnancy allowances payable in a way analogous to child allowances? Thirdly, will she empower local authorities, in certain cases, to remit arrears of council tax rather than restrict the power to the magistrates' courts, as has been done since the advent of the poll tax? Finally, can she give an assurance that the Government will bring about some improvement in the speed and flexibility with which benefits are paid to those who are in and out of what are, sadly, still often short-term jobs, to overcome those periods of desperate poverty and real destitution which result from the slowness of the present system?
	I consider it to be a privilege to support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in this extremely important debate.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this subject. Several noble Lords have spoken eloquently about money and have implied that social exclusion is a consequence of inadequate income. In the few minutes available to me, I intend to address the subject from the other point of view, while acknowledging that these two factors are entirely interactive. I am anxious to explore for a few moments what one might call the root causes of social exclusion and alienation; and, indeed, of poverty.
	Too many young people today are still growing up inadequately prepared for life and for life in a society that is becoming more and more difficult to live in--a complex, competitive and technological society with fewer set rules and social structures than there used to be. I do not just mean young people lacking in literacy and numeracy or in technical education; I also mean young people lacking emotional literacy, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, and inter-personal skills. This means that they are condemned to poverty and exclusion. They have no hope of getting a job because they cannot cope with society as we know it. I have in mind young people who ask themselves, "Who am I?"--as we all do and did--"Where do I fit in?" The answer comes back, "In the street, sleeping rough; in the black economy. Those are the places for me".
	A recent survey entitled, Leading Lads, showed that, at the age of 14, 13 per cent of young men today are depressed, have no confidence in their future and no belief in their ability to have a place in our society. By the time they reach the age of 19, that proportion rises to 17 per cent. The problem of inadequate preparation for life often starts very early. Sadly, the cause is often the lack of a secure, happy and loving environment in the early years, which often leads to rejection when the child enters school. That is the beginning of a downward, slippery slope.
	In saying this, I want to insist that I am not blaming anyone; I am not allocating blame. If we start to think in terms of blame--like blaming single parents, or whatever it may be--we shall lose the thread of the argument and fail to understand the real nature of the problem. With very few exceptions, the reality is that all parents start out wanting the best for their child. But circumstances intervene--for example, unemployment, poverty and debt, which have all been mentioned today, especially by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
	Debt is a terrible problem. Then there is poor housing and loneliness, alcohol, drugs and stress. However, there are also two rather more subjective factors. First, there is a lack of understanding of the needs of the child; in other words, that understanding of the parenting role that used to be passed down from generation to generation. Sadly, the golden chain is broken in some families.
	Secondly, there is the problem of trying to rear a child single-handed. In that context, I should like to stress that I am not stigmatising, criticising or apportioning blame. Far from it. I believe that many single parents are doing an heroic job. But just as sailing around the world single-handed is more difficult than doing so with a crew, so it is more difficult to raise a child single-handed. There are, of course, two kinds of single-handed parenting. There are those in lone-parent households and there are those in households where the second parent is not contributing, or is perhaps making a negative contribution.
	I intend to spend the next few minutes on the issues that surround this problem of single-handed child rearing. It is not, of course, the only problem. However, having worked for 12 years with seriously disadvantaged young people, I am convinced that it is an important one. Moreover, there is not enough time this afternoon to deal with more than one issue.
	As noble Lords will know, there has been a lot of good, recent research in this field. All the evidence shows that some single-handed parents succeed and their children succeed, but that it is a tough and stressful job. Statistics show, as we all know, that a higher proportion of children from households where both parents are involved and share the job of childcare achieve their full potential. Therefore, it seem to me logical to ask whether there is anything that we can do; for example, would it be possible to increase the proportion of the nation's children who have these better chances? If the answer were yes, we would probably be setting the scene for many less stressed and happier parents.
	I believe that there are things that can be done. Obviously I can only suggest one or two this afternoon. But, for example, should we not be ensuring both in school and in post-16 education that all young people have the opportunity to learn about the needs of children and to know the objective facts about a young child's need for security, love, stimulation, guidance and, above all, stability in the key adults in their life? Should not young people in school be learning about how to sustain committed relationships more successfully in the interests of their children?
	I suggest that the Government need to look carefully at the legal, tax and benefits structures to ensure that they reflect the importance to society as a whole of families that are able to give their children the best start in life. Finally, perhaps more contentiously, I suggest that, as a society, we could also try to evolve a set of shared values about the mutual responsibilities of parents, children and the state. There is a great deal of uncertainty within the law today about the responsibilities of a father and those of a mother; and, indeed, about the responsibilities of children, as they grow up, to their parents. That also applies to the relationship of those inter-locking responsibilities with the responsibility of the state.
	With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, I suggest that these are not moral issues. They are, perhaps, moral issues for those who accept moral standards, but we live in a society where many people reject moral standards. In my view, they are social issues; issues of citizenship. If family structures are wrong, the effect on our society is dramatic.
	In the past decade there has been an enormous sea change in the public perception of our responsibility as citizens to the environment. Is it too much to hope that, in the next decade, we might see a similar sea change in our society's perceptions of the mutual responsibilities of the different parties in the family? Enhanced expectations are so important. People often tend to perform in the way that we expect them to perform.
	In conclusion, I ask the Minister to raise with her noble and right honourable colleagues the possibility that the Government's new citizenship curriculum could be used as a vehicle through which our society might work out for itself a family policy for the 21st century--a policy based on the parenting needs of children and one which accepts that, in return for the enormous benefits we receive, we, as citizens, also have duties and responsibilities within the family, which has been described as the basic building block of our society.

Lord Rea: My Lords, as noble Lords might expect, I shall concentrate my remarks on the effect of poverty on health in the United Kingdom, but of course the problem is worldwide, as the noble Earl pointed out.
	I particularly thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate because it allows me to update my maiden speech of November 1982 which centred on the Black report, then only two years old. That report was commissioned in 1977 by my noble friend the late David Ennals--who died much too young--because of emerging evidence that health inequalities were creeping up again after a period when they had narrowed during and just after the 1939-45 war. Of course the findings were inconvenient for the Thatcher administration which was in power by the time the report came out. It had quite other plans for the economy than the redistributive measures recommended by Professor Black and his colleagues.
	In fact, as we all know, the 18 years of monetarist economic policies, high unemployment, anti-trade union legislation and trimming of social security benefits after 1979 resulted in an unprecedented rise in income inequality, so that the UK has become the most unequal society in Europe. This was accompanied by a parallel rise in health inequalities which so far show no sign of disappearing. Luckily there is no need to spell these out in detail today, as my noble friend and most other members of the Government are fully aware of and acknowledge the problem. Frank Dobson, when Minister of Health said in 1997,
	"Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you'll die sooner because you're badly off".
	I heard a story about a tough old inhabitant of the Glasgow district of Drumchapel who, when told that the average life expectancy in his district was 10 years less than in rural Scotland, said, "Well if you lived in Drumchapel, Jimmy, you'd no want another 10 years". Of course, it is not only physical health that is worse in deprived communities but also mental health, including suicide, drug and alcohol abuse and crime, which may have been the main reason why that Drumchapel resident did not recommend living there.
	In June last year the Government produced a document Reducing Health Inequalities: An Action Report which sets out the Government's responses to the Acheson report, Inequalities in Health, the successor, after 18 years, to the Black report. It lists a large raft of policies, many of which encourage action at a local level. Many of these are also described in Opportunity for All, published in September. Many of these suggestions have already been described by noble Lords in the debate. Poverty is, as we all know, to be tackled mainly by getting people into work or preparing them for work.
	This will not only reduce the social security burden on the Treasury but is a laudable aim in itself if the work is sustainable and reasonably well paid and the conditions of work are acceptable. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, too much of the work that is available for the previously unemployed is poorly paid and temporary. Much of it is part-time, useful for women with dependants but seldom well enough paid to attract lone parents off benefits.
	Poverty, therefore, is not automatically abolished by work, and though the working families' tax credit, day care centres and the minimum wage will certainly help those on the bottom rung of the working ladder, low pay will still leave many families in poverty. As other noble Lords have said, the Rowntree report found that the number of adults over 25 on low pay was "worsening"; that is, increasing. It will be interesting to see whether this figure comes down when the new measures are working fully.
	However, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the largest number of those in poverty are those in families where no member is able to work and who are dependent on state benefits. I include in that number pensioners, the disabled, families--often lone parents with young children (that encompasses 2 million children)--and, increasingly, men in the age group 45 to 65 who have been made redundant or who have a health problem which would not normally have prevented them from working if work had been available but who are receiving incapacity benefit. It would be interesting to know if my noble friend can say whether this group has decreased in size as numbers in work have increased over the past two years, and, if so, whether they are actually back in work or on jobseeker's allowance or another benefit.
	There is another group of mainly young adults described graphically by Nick Davies in Dark Heart, but also by my noble friend Lord Hattersley in articles in the Guardian, whose lives have been so damaged by the effects of poverty and emotional deprivation that it is extremely unlikely that they can ever be rehabilitated sufficiently to hold a regular job. I met quite a number of them in my practice in Kentish Town.
	It is these recipients of state benefits who for one reason or another cannot work whose economic status has gone down most. Their relative poverty will continue to increase until benefits are uprated annually in line with average wage increases rather than prices. It is not fully appreciated, as I reported in the debate on the National Health Service two weeks ago, quoting Professor Peter Townsend in The widening gap, that,
	"If the Conservative Government had not reduced social security benefits, it can be estimated that the poorest 20% of the population would today have about £5bn ... more ... disposable income ... and that poverty by European standards would have been reduced by more than a third".--[Official Report, 2/2/2000; cols. 268-69.]
	According to a report prepared by the House of Lords Library for my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and quoted by him in a speech on 11th October--this has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner--by breaking the link between earnings and social security benefits the Exchequer saved £119 billion between 1980 and 1996. That is about £7 billion a year. This was distributed in tax cuts to the better off, and, to quote my noble friend Lord Morris, this was,
	"Not a trickle but a flood, and the direction was up".
	It is no wonder that health inequalities have greatly increased in the past 20 years. To restore the relative position of those on benefit to what it was in 1979 would therefore cost some £7 billion annually. I suggest that this is perfectly possible if the will is there, and could be taken over a five-year period for example. It would mean increasing the social security budget by some 1.5 per cent per annum in real terms for five years, a much lower percentage than is proposed for the National Health Service.
	In the long term this measure would almost certainly improve the nation's health and save more lives than an improved and modernised NHS. However, I realise that the need to sustain the NHS is more politically urgent and clamorous. Middle England demands it. Middle England, however, suffers now from having to pay more to maintain the health of the poorest 20 per cent of the population because of its worse health, as well as suffering the crime and drug related problems which are associated with low income. I suggest that Middle England would not be averse to increasing government expenditure, and therefore taxes in some form, to redistribute income--in easy stages, of course--if the Government were to make a convincing case for it, particularly pointing out that this expenditure would in the end be in their own interest. The widening gap quotes surveys which show that an increasing proportion of the population would now support an increase in income tax to help alleviate poverty. However, I am well aware that what people say in surveys does not always carry over to the ballot box!
	But getting back to the pre-Thatcher situation of 1979 would only restore the relative health levels of that time, which were shown by Black to be unacceptably unequal between rich and poor. There is further to go. The Black report costed the changes which it recommended in 1980. Professor Townsend reports, using figures from Hansard, that in today's prices that would require £12.5 billion, the great majority of it being used to eliminate child poverty, which is one of the Prime Minister's stated priority aims; namely, to halve it in 10 years and to eliminate it in 20 years. The Government accept that there is unacceptable wealth and health inequality in Britain and that this does great damage to society.
	Through reports and the speeches of Ministers, the Government talk in a persuasive way about the measures they are taking to combat this. Many are truly excellent. But I do not think that the Government have begun fully to accept the size of the investment that will be required to correct the damage done by the previous government's policies and to end the imbalances that existed before that. Only when the full extent of that backlog is faced squarely and corrected will we be able to claim that we have achieved the fairer society that the Government were elected to deliver.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He spoke about the impact of poverty on health; I shall be dealing with another aspect of the problem. As my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out in his impressive and wide-ranging speech when he introduced the debate, I shall be concentrating on fuel poverty. I shall be taking as my point of departure Indicator 35 in the Rowntree report, which illustrates the number of excess winter deaths which occur in this country.
	As noble Lords who have studied the report will have seen, up to 45,000 excess winter deaths occur in this country. This mainly affects people in the age group of 65 and over. The Rowntree figures record up to the winter of 1996-97; in the winter of 1998-99 the figure was 49,000. As my noble friend pointed out, this proportion is far in excess of that of any other west European country--something like two to three times in excess.
	It arises because of the poor state of housing, particularly among the elderly on low incomes, with inadequate insulation and inadequate heating. The Government have described the state of fuel poverty as being that of persons who have to spend more than 10 per cent of their income to achieve reasonable heating standards. If those people have to spend that proportion of their income on heating, they tend to skimp. In any event, spending it in a house which is poorly insulated and poorly constructed will have very little impact.
	I have been much involved in this work for many years through the charity NEA, which concentrates on trying to improve the insulation in houses of people on low incomes. I have been in houses which are much more uncomfortable in winter within than without. At least outside the cold was reasonably dispersed. Inside it hit you as though there were a number of rapiers striking at you from under the door, through the window-sills and through various other crevices.
	To be fair, the Government have recognised the problem, and in May last year they introduced a report on new ways of improving heating in homes, particularly the homes affected in the way I have described. This is described as the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). Under this scheme the Government will be devoting considerably more resources than at present to improving heating standards in this category of home. In their estimate, there will be an improvement to the extent of some 460,000 homes being brought out of the fuel poverty area over the next two years.
	This is a welcome development. Unfortunately, the number of households in fuel poverty is between 4 million and 5 million. Therefore, at the rate of 230,000 per annum--if that rate continued--it would take something like 20 years to resolve this problem.
	The problem is fundamentally linked to the poor standard of housing in Britain. We have the oldest housing of any west European country. Some 45 per cent of our houses are more than 50 years old, compared to something like 20 to 30 per cent in other countries. The English housing survey, the last of which related to 1996, showed that there are 1.5 million households living in houses which are officially regarded as unfit for human habitation. This is in Britain, one of the most affluent countries in the world. A further 2.5 million will require very substantial expenditure on improvements to make them suitable for habitation, and many more will require a good deal of expenditure to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
	So this is a fundamental issue in this country, which the Government are tackling in many ways. However--relating back to fuel poverty--we cannot afford to wait for 20 years to resolve it.
	In this connection, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill is being promoted by Mr David Amess in another place. It proposes that a target should be set for the elimination of fuel poverty. I hope that the Bill will get a fair hearing in the other place and that it will be accepted when it comes to your Lordships' House. We need to know the timespan within which this problem will be dealt with. We cannot go on, year after year, with this large number of excess winter deaths which are due to poor housing conditions.
	As the Government have admitted in debates on the subject, there is little doubt that poor housing exacerbates ailments such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The relationship is very clear.
	I should like to end my brief remarks by quoting Helen Liddell, the Minister for Energy. Last November she stated:
	"It is shameful and unacceptable that 5 million families are struggling to afford to heat their homes".
	I am sure that your Lordships fully concur with that sentiment--and I am sure that the Government will do even more than they are doing already to try to deal with this issue.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing this report to the attention of the House. Much of all that has been said relates also to the minority communities, so I shall use my few minutes to bring to the attention of the House two areas of concern which are specific to the community from which I come and which have a real bearing on the poverty described in Rowntree.
	Some visible minority groups have flourished in Britain. From within all communities there are always success stories. Despite this, ethnic minorities are still represented disproportionately in all the key poverty indices. As a result, many from those communities feel ignored, under-valued and powerless. Black communities feel the lack of a strong collective voice to articulate their needs to service providers. Their voluntary sector is under-developed and badly resourced, with small groups often competing with each other for scarce resources. There is a need to encourage more working partnerships and dialogue between different ethnic groups. The need is even more acute in rural communities, where language barriers and different skin colour cause minorities to be extremely isolated.
	One of the most damaging aspects is lack of education. Education decides one's employment. Employment decides where one lives. Empirical data show that young black males are excluded from school at the most critical time during their school years. Unless the Government are prepared to invest in voluntary organisations at the grass-roots level which are able to articulate the ways in which the system fails such children and to suggest remedies, it will be impossible to break the cycle of deprivation.
	A growing number of those excluded early from schools come from the Afro-Caribbean population. Racism and negative stereotyping within the institutions have almost always led to disaffection and disengagement from active citizenship. There is strong evidence that that process starts from a very young age and leads to a poor socio-economic position in society. In whatever plans the Government propose to tackle poverty and social exclusion, there must be a concerted effort to address the disaffection and disengagement experienced by many young men from my community.
	Another area of concern relates to those men and women who enter our institutions for second-chance education. Without proper family support, such people become so poor that survival, rather than any long-term benefits, becomes their real motivator. There are many from their own communities who could give them support and encouragement if some funding were available to set up projects aimed particularly at their special needs.
	Major researches show that racial discrimination and racism are realities in our society. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already given the figures for unemployment among black males. Cultural diversity is not a popular concept in all walks of British life. Special financial help is a necessity if such men are to move forward into social inclusion.
	A simple fact is that young men tend to marry when they feel that they are economically able to support a wife. Most families feel content when an economically able young man proposes to their daughter. In the black community, the lack of full-term education will by default create more young single parents. I know that that situation was initiated by the slave traders in the early days, but we have come a long way since then. We are now at the point where if children are thrown out of schools, they will seek other means of comfort. I suggest that we look carefully at those who exclude children from schools without another place for their learning.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has given us to explore some of the over-simple mythologies surrounding social exclusion; for instance, the myth that social exclusion is only regionally based, whereas the evidence points to severe deprivation also within regions. My own region, the east of England, would score quite well on a regional league table, but it contains also areas of serious deprivation. I also welcome the debate because it courageously makes public the benchmarks against which social exclusion issues may now be judged, although I acknowledge and welcome the considerable force of the noble Earl's request for more precise statistics, especially relating to the very poor.
	I want to draw attention to three areas of concern. First, government macro-economic and macro-social policies, while no doubt put in place for a good reason, can have unforeseen micro-consequences. The decision, for example, whenever possible, to make the payment of benefits and pensions electronically will clearly save money at the macro-level. But translated to the micro-level, the irony is that, far from alleviating social exclusion, that policy may actually exacerbate it.
	Let us take the example of a single woman pensioner living in my diocese in a Bedfordshire village, where there is no post office or bank. If her pension of £66.75 is paid electronically to her bank, in order actually to withdraw that money she has to spend at least £2 in bus fares--she is lucky that there is a bus at all--then spend money on a lunch because the buses do not run to suit her convenience. To collect her £66.75 will actually cost her approximately £6. That is 10 per cent of her pension spent in order to collect it. That seems totally unjustifiable and inequitable. Will the Minister assure the House that the electronic payment systems for benefits and pensions will be flexible enough to ensure that no pensioner, either rural or urban, is directly penalised for being old, immobile and a non-driver?
	Secondly, the East of England Development Agency, in common with other RDAs, is, for understandable reasons, making much play of developing the local knowledge-based economy. I applaud that and I welcome it. But where knowledge is increasingly the capital of our new society, access to that knowledge is critical. That, again, has an impact upon young, old, and those who, through poverty or disability, lack mobility. I think, for instance, of a student trying to reach Cambridge Regional College where he is studying who, I am told, gets a lift with his father for the first 10 miles to a bus stop. If the bus does not arrive, he then has to phone his mother, who has to leave work, pick him up and drive a further five miles in order to get him to college. He has tried the alternative, which is public transport. It involves leaving home at half-past six in the morning, which I am assured, surprisingly, he would not mind, but it would cost him £20 per week. He cannot earn £20 per week to get access to his education.
	If the knowledge-based economy is our future--and I have no doubt that it is--then social exclusion will encompass those debarred from that economy by distance and disability. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I should be glad to know what thinking is going on to ensure that the rhetoric about access bears some relationship to reality.
	The third area concerns the role of the Church in combating social exclusion. I could give dozens of examples of what the churches are already doing, but I shall allow one or two to suffice. There is in my diocese an Anglican/Methodist Church in Bedford which provides community facilities for over 3,000 users per week. It is used by groups with learning disabilities, women's groups and groups from faiths other than the Christian faith. That community centre cost the people of that church more than £300,000 to create, including VAT. Not a single penny came from government sources or from local authority sources.
	I give another example. In a survey conducted of Bedfordshire churches, I discovered that more than 500 adults voluntarily give their time to work with young people; again, at no cost either to national or local government. I have yet another example. In the east of England over 4,000 church wardens give their time to care for the 2,500 Anglican churches. Someone is bound to come up to me and say, "But what about the English Heritage grants?" I shall remind him that the Church pays more in VAT than it receives in grants--far, far more--and, irony of ironies, it pays it on building alterations specifically designed to try to create greater community use and greater social inclusion.
	My point is a simple one. In every community there is a church--and frequently a number of churches--which remains available while all other organisations, such as banks and post offices, move out. The vast majority of those churches provide not only the physical resources to combat social exclusion but also attempt to provide the more significant spiritual resources. Without being too pious, it is the injunction to love God and love our neighbours which is the fount of energy that enables churchgoers and others to do so much for their communities.
	In these circumstances, can the Minister assure the House that the role of the Churches in combating social exclusion will be taken seriously by the Government, that steps will be taken to ensure ex officio status for Churches and other faith communities on the developing regional bodies and, perhaps most importantly of all, that a forum will be set up to enable heritage interests, which I regard with genuine respect, having once been an archdeacon--not least because some Members opposite knew me as an archdeacon--to meet with social exclusion interests, to see how our Churches can be released to play an even greater part in creating a more just and fair society. I recognise and welcome the energy being deployed to tackle social exclusion, but what I long for is the development of more imaginative partnerships in which Churches, other faith groups and especially those who are socially excluded themselves can play a role which reflects the work they are already doing.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the opportunity to debate and highlight the matter of poverty and social exclusion, and the measures needed to reduce them.
	As someone who lives in the Rhondda Valley, I see the effects of poverty and social exclusion every day. The Rhondda and the other valley communities in South Wales suffered greatly during the 1980s and 1990s, when we saw the decimation of the coal and steel industries. The loss of a job in these circumstances is a loss to the community. When a colliery closes down, the community closes down. It brings about a feeling of despair and of no hope for the future. It brings poverty to that community and also a rise in petty crime and drug abuse among young people. But most of all, it brings poverty and social exclusion to young children. This picture I paint of a valley community sounds rather depressing. But I believe that under this Government things will improve. Already measures are being put in place which are bringing back hope and an anticipation that the future will be brighter.
	The problem facing the Government in eliminating child poverty is an enormous one. The statistics are well known, but are worth repeating. Child poverty has trebled over the past 30 years: 4.3 million children now live in poverty. Disproportionate numbers of them either live in households where there is no adult earner, or in one parent families. Combating poverty and social exclusion that threatens to separate these children from the mainstream is a complex task, but a hugely important one.
	The Government are tackling the problems on many fronts. In their document Opportunity for All--their first annual report tackling poverty and social exclusion--they set out the aim of eradicating child poverty within 20 years. That is a very ambitious aim but one which the Government are determined to meet. How can the Government achieve their aim? From where we are now, if we do nothing--or very little--if we fail to break the cycle of deprivation that is handed down from generation to generation, we will build a society where there is no hope for these children.
	We have seen the bad effect of child poverty which shows itself in poor health, low attainment at school and poor prospects in the job market, to mention just a few. In their report the Government say:
	"We are determined to create a United Kingdom where everyone has opportunities to work, to learn, to make a contribution and to achieve their full potential ... Our goal is for a fairer society; where no child lives in poverty".
	One of the measures introduced in October 1999 was the working families' tax credit. That will give a minimum income of £200 a week to working families with children. That means an average of £24 extra per week for these families. In Wales alone the Inland Revenue has said that 75,000 families should benefit from the working families' tax credit in the financial year 2000-01.
	On child benefit, approximately 360,000 families in Wales will benefit from the uprating in April. That will be the highest ever rise in child benefit. The latest information available on the New Deal, as it affects Wales, shows that more than 8,500 New Deal participants have obtained a job through one or other of the New Deal initiatives. Within that total, the New Deal for 18 to 24 year-olds has seen more than 6,500 jobs secured by young people, including 4,800 sustained jobs. The New Deal brought the hope of a job to young people in Wales, many of whom live in some of the most deprived areas in the country.
	I use these examples to show that the Government's policies on assisting families with children are working with such good results. This is just the start of the 20-year plan to eradicate child poverty. The national minimum wage has helped many low paid workers to rise above poverty wages, and the promised increase will assist these people even further. Together with the 10p income tax and the working families tax credit, it is helping to make work pay and giving back pride and dignity to people as they are able to provide better for their children than they would have been able to do had they continued to live on benefits.
	In conclusion, I believe that the Government have made a good start in their aim to eliminate child poverty in 20 years. Continuing to monitor the initiatives they have begun should enable their aims to be met. It will not be an easy task but it is one which must never be abandoned. For future generations, the benefit of seeing children grow up in homes that are adequately financed will have a positive spin-off in many directions: for example, good health, better housing, better schooling, an improved family environment and an improved, stable family life. Those aims are worthy of a Labour government. I look forward to future initiatives in this field in the lifetime of this Government.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I join many others in thanking my noble friend Lord Russell for affording us the opportunity to focus our attention on those members of society who are in the most urgent need. At the outset I declare an interest. I have worked for many years for Age Concern England, and for a proportion of that time I have worked in some of the poorest and some of the most affluent areas in this city. I want to concentrate on some of the poorest people of all--older people of working age but not in employment, pensioners and other older people.
	During the past two years it has been interesting to watch the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People as it has developed a plethora of initiatives with wonderful titles; for example, Listening to Older People and Better Government for Older People. Welcome as many of the programmes are because they highlight the extent to which older people are marginalised in society, there are a number of somewhat more basic ways in which the Government are failing to tackle poverty. There are some simple things that can be done, and it is on those that I want to dwell in the short time available.
	The Government's overall priority, repeated like a mantra by the Chancellor, is to "get people off benefits and into work". For many people aged over 50, the odds against their finding a job are so high that that is not so much an aspiration as a pipe-dream. The Government's own statistics, drawn from the Labour Force Survey, supplied in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Russell on 18th January, indicate that the number of people aged between 50 and 60 who are not in employment rose from 1.91 million in 1989 to 2.12 million in 1999; and there was a slight decrease in the figure for those aged between 60 and 65, from 1.88 million to 1.81 million.
	Unemployment among older people is becoming an increasing problem. A recent study from the LSE indicates that 600,000 more men and 200,000 more women aged over 50 would be working now if older men were working at the level of 1979 and if older women had shared in the increase in work for younger women over the same period. Many studies--perhaps the most notable of which is that produced by Professor Alan Walker entitled Too Old at 50--provide ample evidence of ageism among employers. People are laid off or encouraged to take early retirement simply on the grounds of age. To give an idea of the scale of unemployment among older people, it may be helpful to draw your Lordships' attention to a study published by the Employers Federation on Age, which has calculated that institutionalised ageism costs the British economy £26 billion every year.
	During the Christmas holiday I was in conversation with three very good friends of mine. The oldest celebrated his 40th birthday last year. One is a civil engineer, one is an accountant and one is a computer systems designer. One will be made redundant in a couple of months' time and the other two have looked round their offices and come to the realisation that there is no one in the office aged over 40. Each has up-to-date computer skills but all are worried that when we meet again next Christmas they will be unemployed. Ageism has ceased to be a problem solely for old people.
	Despite the extent of unemployment among people aged over 50 and the extension of the New Deal to include that age group, unemployment shows no sign of decreasing. Nevertheless, the Government have so far refused to introduce anti-age discrimination legislation, preferring to rely instead on a voluntary code of practice for age diversity in employment. A few enlightened employers such as B&Q have set out specifically to recruit and retain older workers and have valued their skills. I applaud them for being pioneers of what I hope will one day become standard best practice in employment. However, if the pattern of combating other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sex discrimination, are repeated, it will be 30 years before older workers fight their way on to shortlists solely on their ability. That is simply far too long. In the meantime, more and more people will be compelled to exist below the poverty line.
	So if employment is not achievable, what are the Government going to do to alleviate pensioner poverty via the benefits system? The answer is, not quite as much as the spin doctors would have us believe. At a time when the economy is growing, pensioners are being left further and further behind.
	The increase in the basic state pension of 75p from April is an insult. That increase, from £66.75 per week to £67.50 per week from next April, will give those with a basic state pension not quite enough to meet the £40 increase in council tax which, net of all rebates and benefits, a typical pensioner will have to pay next year. And there will be no additional income to meet any other increases--for example, in community care charges. The 75p increase was calculated last autumn, when inflation was low. It was low because mortgage and interest rates were low. So those pensioners who also rely on savings income have been hit by a double whammy.
	Whenever I talk to groups of pensioners, one topic is always mentioned; namely, the plight of pensioners who have just enough savings to take them over the capital limits. There are 600,000 pensioners who live below the income support line but who have capital above £8,000. For most, that is their life savings. We are not talking about people with the riches of Croesus. They are having to get by on an income well below the level of the minimum income guarantee, and this year their income will rise by a grand total of 1.1 per cent. The capital limits were set by the previous government, and they have been frozen for three years. This Government have promised to review those limits. But pensioners have been waiting for two years. I put a simple question to the Minster. How much longer are they going to have to wait?
	I now turn to the minimum income guarantee--a misnomer if ever there was one! It is certainly minimal and it is income, but it is not a guarantee. One-third of those who are entitled to the income guarantee do not receive it. At present, the only way to ensure that pensioners receive their entitlement is to increase the basic state pension. Why will the Government not do so?
	If the Government continue to resist increases to the basic state pension, we really must question their commitment to getting money to pensioners who are most in need. At present, 750,000 pensioners entitled to income support do not claim it. The Department of Social Security has conducted research on the number of pensioners who should be claiming but who are not. It has come up with the usual reasons: ignorance, stigma, the complexity of forms proving too much for people. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. Those pensioners who come from minority communities are even more unlikely to be able to claim.
	On 17th January in another place, Mr John Grogan drew attention to the problem of the under-claiming of income support. He cited the DSS research and also the solution suggested by the department; namely, making income support an automatic payment without the need to claim. At the time of an application for the basic state pension, pensioners would be asked what income they received from other pensions. If that did not add up to the minimum income guarantee, they would automatically receive a payment. On that occasion the Minister, Mr Rooker, expressed interest in that as a way of ensuring that those who are in greatest need receive the support to which they are entitled. I ask the Minister whether that is still under consideration. If it is, when is an answer likely to be forthcoming?
	Perhaps I may refer briefly to the issue of fuel poverty. The Minister will no doubt talk about the winter fuel payment. But that payment will not form part of the basic state pension and will therefore not be uprated. Like the £10 Christmas bonus, it could remain at the same level for the next 25 years. Ministers have said repeatedly that it is equivalent to £2 a week on the basic state pension. Why can that not be done and then uprated automatically?
	I conclude with one comment on energy efficiency. For many years the organisation Care and Repair had a major government contract to carry out work on pensioners' homes. It has now lost that contract which has been awarded to somebody else. That is a major service which is known to older people who suffer some of the worst housing problems. I believe that that will be a severe blow to the attempts of the Government to tackle both the causes and effects of fuel poverty. I do not believe that on its own the winter fuel payment will do so.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I too express gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate. I start with a confession. Until yesterday morning I thought that last week had not been a good one for me. The week started with my speaking and voting against the Government, having been driven by conscience. As the week progressed I was given to understand that the Government had resisted the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to improve the level of the national minimum wage. As my noble friends can testify, I thought that again I would be in conflict with the Government that I support.
	But that was last week. When I awoke yesterday and turned on the radio things were totally different. I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Government would increase the level of the national minimum wage in line with the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission. It was that announcement which prompted me to speak in this debate on poverty, social exclusion and the way in which low wages contribute to the state of deprivation in which so many people find themselves.
	For 28 years I represented workers in the private service sector, the overwhelming majority of whom are women working in shops, restaurants, cafes, pubs, clubs and hotels. Over the years I was able to observe the impact of low wages on people's living standards. Low pay--often called "poverty wages"--is not new but very old. What is so damning is that it is still with us at the start of the new millennium. What is the history of low pay? We know that the situation was considered to be so bad at the beginning of the 20th century that Winston Churchill introduced the wages councils which covered the areas of industry renowned for low wages and sweated labour. In order to address that dismal situation the wages councils survived for most of that century until the 1980s when they were swept away, leaving millions of vulnerable workers to the mercy of the market or, more accurately, bad employers.
	Is it not a funny old world when sometimes attitudes and party policies change dramatically? When in government the Conservatives abolished the only mechanism to provide legal minimum rates of pay as a means to reduce poverty among working people. However, when in opposition the Conservatives fought tooth and nail to prevent the Labour Government introducing a national minimum wage of just £3.60 per hour. With the return of Michael Portillo, the Opposition now say that the national minimum wage will not suffer the same fate as wages councils if the Conservatives are returned to government.
	In the five years from 1978 to 1983 I had responsibility for negotiating with employers through the wages councils on behalf of workers employed in the hotel and catering industry. I remember when the weekly pay of many workers in London hotels was less than the charge for one night's accommodation, and they were not the most exclusive hotels either. That situation probably exists in some hotels today. The national minimum wage will not of itself solve the problem of poverty and social exclusion, but it is a starting point for impoverished and vulnerable workers on which we can build. That is the main way in which we can eventually remove the scourge of low pay that is suffered by the working poor.
	Until the wages councils were abolished the demand for a national minimum wage received only limited support because the legal mechanism provided by those bodies covered the overwhelming majority of low paid workers in the private sector. But as soon as the wages councils were abolished the demand for a national minimum wage grew rapidly. Now that we have the national minimum wage we must ensure that its value is at least maintained. I believe that it should be increased in real terms at every opportunity because that is the only way to eliminate the scandal of the working poor of which we should all be ashamed.
	I draw attention to just three references in the Rowntree report which I believe are worthy of comment. First, in the section headed "Poverty and low income" reference is made to,
	"the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and the working families tax credit, both of which will now be influencing the incomes of many of the working poor".
	It must be acknowledged that these measures, introduced by a Labour government, will undoubtedly make a difference. The second reference reads:
	"The number of people with less than 40 per cent of average income, who are the very poorest, is rising. Between 1994/95 and 1997/98 there was a rise of 1.1 million".
	That is a clear indication of how the problem was becoming worse. To an extent that has been stayed because of the measures introduced by a Labour government. I believe that the third reference is the most important:
	"The duration of time spent on a very low income can have a considerable effect on the deprivation of a person or family".
	I conclude by referring to the word "deprivation". Deprivation faced by the working poor is not just a denial of the material things of life or the inability to build a satisfactory home, to own a car, to take a holiday, to save for an emergency or special occasion, to save for a pension or to provide for one's children the things that their school friends have. Deprivation can be all those things in a society as affluent as ours. But deprivation is more than that. There can be deprivation where, through poverty pay, there is an attack on dignity and self-respect which are damaged, sometimes beyond repair. Deprivation also means that hope and confidence ebb away to be replaced by a feeling of guilt. That leads to despair and depression which often arise from the severe burden of debt where the poor become the victims of loan sharks. Those consequences are faced by far too many in this land of plenty and should not be tolerated any longer. The sooner they are eradicated the sooner our society will be a better place for all of us.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in introducing this debate, my noble friend Lord Russell said that I would talk about rural transport. I do so from the background of an Oxfordshire county councillor who has had responsibility for this aspect of policy and also experience of the bus industry.
	The Government have done some good things: they have introduced a rural bus service grant and the rural bus service challenge fund. They have restored--I believe that the correct term is "unfrozen"--the fuel duty rebate and promised half-fare passes for the elderly. Although that promise was made some time ago, it has yet to be delivered. Many people in rural areas do not expect a great deal. A study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oxford states that those who travel most are more unhappy than those who travel less. Travelling a great deal and racing around makes life more stressful and more unhappy. However, people in rural communities want a sufficiency of travel opportunities and will not complain about having more of them.
	In seeking to evaluate the usefulness of the rural bus service grant and other government measures, I have considered carefully a hierarchy of users of buses. The top priority is getting people to employment. In the survey of people in rural Oxfordshire, concern for their children's employment prospects is placed first in the list of worries of people in rural areas. Having a job is placed by rural people well above having a car. The job is at the centre of people's desires.
	Second in order of preference was the ability to undertake training and education. That was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. Children who live in Oxfordshire can in general travel only to the school where the school bus goes. But those with two cars have a choice of schools; they are able to take their children to the better schools. However, in instituting these new rural bus services, we find that others are allowed a choice. Sixth form education in parts of my county has to be sought at colleges of further education and not in the sixth form. Many children travel 20 miles or more to receive sixth form education; and we do not pay their travel costs. We do not have the money, so the families have to pay them.
	Health is the third item in my hierarchy. Getting to the doctor and the hospital are important. In 10 days' time we shall see the closure of two community hospitals in Oxfordshire, in Watlington and Burford. It is a long way from Watlington to the next hospital. People were promised that there would be more domiciliary care, and transport to the next hospital. At yesterday's public meeting, people were told that the domiciliary care arrangements have not been made; transport has not been arranged; but a planning application has been made to turn the hospital into luxury flats which are not for the people who live in that area. There is also the need to get to an optician or a dentist. NHS care is thin on the ground. Although I may not need it myself, the occasional visit to a hairdresser does a great deal to lift some people's spirits, but it may be a long way to travel.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned shopping. Although local shops are valued, they are more expensive. If people have to travel a long way to get to them, the cost is even greater. The lowest income families in rural areas on average travel 25 miles a week to do their shopping against 12 miles in the more urban and suburban areas.
	The last item on my list is entertainment. Young people are often cut off from any form of entertainment. I have outlined the features which I believe a regular bus service should provide. I believe that I am right to put getting people into employment at the top of the list.
	I regularly use the services funded under the rural bus service grant. I see the people who use them. After a year, quite a lot of people are now travelling to new jobs which they have obtained because the bus services are in place. Work is changing in the rural area. We have two golf courses where there used to be farms. We have hotels or nursing homes in large houses. People use the buses when leaving their children in childcare nurseries--they seem to be a growth industry--on their dash into cities to work. And, of course, people use buses to catch the train. If the bus services are to be any good, they have to cover broad working hours from seven in the morning until seven at night. They must run on Saturdays because people have to be able to get to work; and in some cases on Sundays, otherwise they do not get a job. Unfortunately that is the way in which work is now organised.
	There are social aspects. When I was travelling on one of these buses recently, an elderly couple said to me, "This bus is a godsend to us because since our son left home"--he had the car--"we can't get out". Noble Lords may consider that a weekly trip into Watlington is hardly a visit to Sin City, but it makes a huge difference to those people's lives. We should not undervalue getting out from the four walls of one's home and seeing a few different people.
	How are the Government evaluating these bus services? There are (what I call) discontinuities. We may have got a dozen people into work and out of benefit; and that has saved a lot of money. The county council pays for the bus subsidy but somewhere else in government that money is saved. However, the two are not matched in any form of accounting.
	I gave the Minister previous notice of matters to which I hope that I shall receive some answers. All shire counties want to know whether the rural bus service grant will be continued. At present it will run out in less than a year's time, and we are busy letting out tenders. We do not know the answer. It would be a tragedy if the good we have done will be lost.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have not had prior notice of these questions. However, it is not a debate on transport.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, because I intended to raise these issues, I wrote a letter about them which should have arrived here on Monday morning.
	One of the greatest obstacles to maintaining services in rural areas is the need for small buses. The present regulations limit the size of what is called a taxi-bus--the Government are keen on such buses having given a lot of money to them through the challenge fund--to eight seats. The limit needs to be raised to 12 seats to accommodate the people in rural areas. In many places, large buses are inappropriate to the needs of people.
	My final point relates to bus passes--I think that they will be made available to senior citizens--for which they will pay £5 and receive half fare travel. I understand that a provision will be included in the Transport Bill. There are two worries. First, we want to be sure that people in one local authority area pay one £5 and can travel over the boundaries into other areas. With the reorganisation of local government, people often want to shop in the next town which is outside the local authority area. The pass must be useful.
	The second and more important point relates to the young person's rail card. It is a commercial approach and many young people use it. There is no equivalent on buses. Many young people find bus fares incredibly expensive; mention has been made of that. If the Government are concerned about social exclusion of young people in rural areas, they should consider seriously extending the possibility of half fare travel to young as well as old people. They are two distinct groups but they both suffer from a form of exclusion.

Lord Lucas: I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on initiating the debate. One of the few pleasures of being in opposition is to find myself on the same side of the House as the noble Earl, and I intend to enjoy that for the next 10 minutes.
	I shall concentrate on the social exclusion aspect and on those people who do not have access to mainstream society and economic life but nonetheless should have. There are many reasons why people cannot gain such access. They tend to be personal and diverse. The reasons are hard to categorise and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, demonstrated, they are cross-departmental. I think that the only departments the issue does not touch are the Foreign Office and Defence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raised the point earlier of communications. The obvious solution to that is for the Department of Trade and Industry to have a clause in its contracts with mobile telecommunications companies that their masts and the accompanying trunk telecoms to connect them to their base stations might be used for the forthcoming ISDN system that is to be the way for businesses to connect to the Internet but that is otherwise restricted to places within three miles of the main exchange. If one is seeking to tackle a problem that wide and diverse, it is extremely difficult to do it out of one ministry set up in a conventional way.
	I hope that we all agree that this is a problem we need to tackle. There is immense human cost and suffering as a result of people being excluded from the mainstream of society. To be excluded is a very uncomfortable and unpleasant thing on a personal basis. It costs the country a great deal to support people who are excluded in this way and who could, if they were able, earn their own place in society. In many cases people who are subject to this become disruptive influences in society and cost all of us a great deal of heartache and disruption in our own lives as a result. It is a hard and long road to do something about social exclusion. It is, as the right reverend Prelate said, a matter of community, not of partisan politics. It is something that we all ought to be joined together in doing. We ought to respect the structures set up by this Government. I am immensely impressed by the Social Exclusion Unit and by what lies behind that as a philosophy. We ought to give a commitment to respect that and to respect the structures and the initiatives so that our very long term policies can be carried forward from one government to the next without ever wondering whether they will be cut short as a result of a change in government, let alone a change in Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, research is enormously important. It seems to me sometimes, certainly when I look back at my time in government, that there is a disregard for the value of information. Information is not collected. When it is collected it is not made widely available to researchers. In all these things we are dealing with a difficult and complex problem. We ought to approach every single initiative from a research perspective. From the very beginning they ought to be designed to produce information, enabling evaluation to take place of how they have gone. Otherwise, how can anyone else build on what has gone before? I am sure that this Government are improving upon something that was our practice. I deduce that from the gestures of the Minister. But there was certainly a lot of potential. When one looks at the area of social exclusion about which I speak, I do not think that public subsidy is the thing. This is not a question of bread and circuses. We are looking at people stuck down a well, floating on a table, and raising the water level a bit does not make much difference. We have to throw them a rope and help them to climb it.
	The key issue we have to tackle is the tax rate on people whose benefits and entitlements, as the poorest members of society, are withdrawn as income comes in. This Government are starting on the issue; we never did. I shall be praising the Government far too much for the comfort of my own Front Bench. One of the notable things we did was to reduce the top tax rate to 40 per cent because we understood that that would increase the Treasury tax "take" and therefore the Treasury's ability to help the lower paid. This Government, to their credit, have taken that on board and have not sought to reverse it. We never had the courage--and certainly the Treasury never had the courage--to do that for the lower paid. There may be an argument that these people have been so long out of economic life, that, like the average Russian, they will not know what to do with the freedom. That should not stop us trying. We can do these things by way of test, trying this way and that way to find out what kind of support is needed. We ought to have in mind the aim that we should bring the tax rate down. Forty per cent may be a little ambitious. But certainly 50 per cent should be considered. One ought to be able to keep half the extra one earns. I am sure that if people could do that, then the incentive--when people have adjusted to put work above the benefits received--to go out there and earn a bit extra would be sufficient that the benefits to the Treasury at the end of the day would more than outweigh the cost. That is a very hard argument to win with the Treasury. Because it is being done by way of the benefit system, we can carry out trials in restricted areas. We do not have to change the whole tax system. There could be trials in the benefits system. I hope that that is something the Government will come to consider if they are not already doing so.
	We need to increase people's access to training and education, jobs and advice. People who are stuck in social deprivation have a very hard time making it on to the jobs market. In all kinds of ways they become disabled from getting there. There needs to be great concentration on providing the services that these people require to get back into work. The Government are doing well. One only has to see what services are available to ex-prisoners to realise that an awful lot needs to be done.
	There is much we can do to stop people ever getting into this difficulty or, if they get into it, to make sure that they have the ability to get out. It is an area where very notably the sins of the father are visited on the son. One has only to look at the backgrounds of many prisoners to realise that far too many come from homes where life was difficult and where they lacked the training and upbringing that would have equipped them to deal with problems and difficulties. Prison is one of the places where parenthood education is really starting to show. There are some very interesting initiatives taking place. Prisoners respond enormously well, not surprisingly, because it is something they realise they need but to which they never had access before. There is great scope for taking that kind of initiative out into schools generally. Very few of us who embarked on marriage really knew what parenthood was about other than what we had learned from our parents. If you have not learned much from your parents, there is very little you can do.
	The Government also, in my view, need to support marriage. It is not a question of marriage being the best thing for the parents; it is clearly the best thing for the kids. It is the best environment in which to bring up children. One must recognise that marriages break up a great deal in modern society, that there are many different forms of family, and that family is something that survives the end of marriage. There is no reason why a kid should not associate with both parents. In my case I hope that they do. Family is something that does not end with marriage. There should be structures within government to support that continuation. It should not be left to parts of the noble Baroness's department which at times seems to be driving families apart when a marriage has ended. Perhaps that was more the practice under our government than hers. It does, however, seem to be the case in some respects.
	We need to do a great deal about education. Much has been said on that. We did a great deal and this Government are building on that, equipping children with the basic things they need in order to succeed in life. Literacy and numeracy come at the head of those requirements. I would put behind that what I think comes under the general heading of citizenship, which this Government, again, are pursuing. There should also be an emphasis on history and developing a real sense of who we are and why we are and where we are in this society so we can feel that it is something to which we belong. That is one of the great motivators. A feeling among people that they are able to do things within society creates the feeling that they belong to it and that they have a part in it.
	We should, beyond anything else, value low achievers. It is one of the great features, for instance, of the education system in Singapore that they really value the bottom 20 per cent on the academic scale because that is where the really interesting people are. By making sure they come out of education well equipped for the world, they have built some world class companies consisting of people who were in that bottom 20 per cent.
	We all have much to learn. There is much to do in this area. I congratulate the Government on what they are doing and I hope they continue their good work.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating the debate. I want briefly to speak about the health of women and children and socio-economic depravation.
	The health of women is particularly important, not only because they constitute more than half the population but because of their role as carers for children and other dependants, and in pregnancy itself. The objective of pregnancy care has always been to facilitate the birth of a full-term, well grown normal baby with a minimal risk of mortality and developmental problems. Low birthweight babies are more likely to have health and educational problems and it has now been shown by Barker and many others that low birthweight is associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the adult offspring and that the association may be causal. Low birthweight is twice as common in lower social class women, thus rendering even more important the provision of adequate resources and care for women before, during and after pregnancy and neonatal services for the baby.
	The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, published this month, illustrates with tragic clarity the effects of poverty on health. It reports:
	"the research interviewers encountered examples of poverty and deprivation of a degree which they could hardly believe was possible in late 20th-century Britain. This striking association of absolute poverty with the risk of infant death remains as clear as when first described by Templeman in 1892".
	To that can be added information from the World Health Organisation that England and Wales share with some other countries in eastern Europe the highest rate--7 per cent--of low birth weight babies under 2,500 grams in Europe.
	Evidence previously presented by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the independent inquiry into inequalities in health associated the poor nutrition of the mother with low birth weight. Nutrition is considerably worse in deprived women than in the better off.
	The work of Professor Eva Alberman has clearly demonstrated the reduction in child mortality and morbidity that would result from the improvement in the birth weight of babies born at less than 2,500 grams through improved nutrition of the mother. Long-term health problems begin with underfed conception. Foetal growth restriction during pregnancy is a major cause of still birth, blindness, deafness, mental handicap and of the higher risks of developing chronic diseases in later life. The costs to the Treasury of ill health and educational under-achievement start in the womb. While it is obviously right for government health policies to tackle heart disease, cancer and mental health, nevertheless, prevention through adequate minimum incomes in pregnancy needs looking at.
	Some of the other findings of the confidential inquiry are also pertinent. The risk of sudden infant deaths was higher the lower the family income. Twice as many families experiencing sudden infant deaths as control families received income support. A striking feature of the study was a strong association of both explained and unexplained deaths with extreme poverty and socio-economic deprivation. Parents were younger, less well educated, had lower incomes, were more likely to be unemployed and lived in less suitable housing, which was commonly overcrowded. Mothers were less likely to have a supportive partner than were the mothers of control infants. Families suffered the effects of multiple deprivation. A consistent thread through many of the cases was a background of social chaos, often coupled with abject poverty.
	A similar association exists between childhood mortality and morbidity. While childhood mortality rates have fallen, the social class differentials persist. Infant mortality rate for social class V births was 70 per cent higher than social class I births.
	Childhood morbidity, too, for certain diseases such as respiratory problems is rising and health inequality between class groups is widening. From the time they are born, young children have a very different experience of factors hazardous to their health. The health risks experienced is influenced powerfully by social position.
	I support many of the pleas made by several noble Lords to the Government. Although I recognise much that the Government are doing to help the socially disadvantaged, I hope that they will do more.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this important topic for debate. It is of vital concern to disabled people and is so wide-ranging in its impact on us that today I shall concentrate on one area.
	The Secretary of State for Education and Employment said in a speech last year,
	"In the end it will be work that protects people from poverty".
	If that is the case, there is a significant group of disabled people--those who need personal assistance in order to work--who are being left out of current government policies.
	Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to be unemployed and, once unemployed, find it harder to get back into work. As John Knight and Martine Brent quoted in their report on disabled people's experience of social exclusion, 41 per cent of those surveyed agreed that,
	"It's virtually impossible to get a job if you're disabled".
	The Government's New Deal and other programmes aim to increase the number of disabled people in employment and to reduce the financial disincentives to work which have sometimes been created by the benefit system. However, recent policy initiatives have neglected to tackle a significant barrier to employment experienced by many disable people; a barrier which has been called "the personal assistance trap".
	People who need help just to get up in the morning, be washed and dressed and go about their daily lives are increasingly being charged for these basic necessities once their income and savings rise above the most meagre levels. These are the people whom many would regard as the most severely disabled and therefore the most in need. In a recent interview the Minister, Hugh Bayley, said that the Government hold the view that disabled people ought to pay for "social care". It is the Government's policy on charging and means testing for this care which is creating severe financial disincentives to personal assistance users who want too work.
	The irony is that over the past 30 years new technology with such possibilities as voice operated computers has opened up the world of employment to people with even the highest support needs. Successive governments' policies have also provided alternatives to residential care and dependence on families so that severely disabled people are now able to hold down a job and live independently with support in their own homes.
	People who need a significant amount of personal assistance to go about their daily lives can look to two main sources of help: either cash payments in the form of direct payments from the local authority and the Independent Living Fund or direct services provided by local health and social services such as home care. All of them have financial disincentives to work and particularly to any form of advancement. ILF payments are means tested and so increasingly are direct payments. There are only five local authorities in the country which do not charge for home care services. Mine is one of them--Hammersmith and Fulham--and now it is proposing to charge £5 an hour to anyone with savings or income of £16,000.
	Until January, ILF clients in employment were able to earn only £30 above the level of income support before deductions were made for their care. This also applied to their partner's income. Not surprisingly, with this major disincentive to work, only 100 out of the 5,000 severely disabled people helped by the ILF have managed to find jobs.
	These means-tested rules have now been relaxed to allow clients to keep 45 per cent of their earnings between £30 and £200 a week. Above that figure, they still have to pay everything they earn towards the full cost of their care. While this relaxation is welcome, it still means that severely disabled people are being forced to pay 55 per cent tax on part of their income. That is on top of income tax, council tax, business rates and VAT.
	The maximum payable has also been raised to around £30,000 a year. This can be made to sound a generous amount for disabled people; that is, until you recognise that it is purely wages for other people--other taxpayers. As Paul Matthews, a small businessman employing 24-hour assistance, put it:
	"I employ nearly 30 people and yet every single one of them earns more money than I am allowed to keep!"
	I believe that there should be no means testing or charging for personal support services. If an individual patient costs the health service £30,000 a year, we do not demand, if they are working, that they contribute to the costs of their healthcare. Nor do we give refunds to those without children or charge extra for education services to those with several. Surely it is for the good of a healthy, just society that we should all contribute to the cost of providing personal support services to those whose lives would not be viable or would be intolerable without them.
	To means test such support provides a powerful disincentive to work and save for people who already face enormous extra costs. The Government cannot tackle social exclusion for this group, nor can they be truly effective in getting disabled people and carers into, or back to, work without addressing the whole infrastructure of personal support.
	The inquiry of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, Opportunities for Disabled People, published on 24th November last year, concluded that,
	"disabled people with high support needs who wish to work face considerable financial disincentives".
	It recommended that the Government establish a cross-departmental working party to examine a range of options within the tax and benefits system that might ease "the personal assistance trap". The Government have not yet taken up this recommendation. I urge them to do so.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Russell for initiating this very important debate. As my title implies, I come from Guildford, which is hardly the most deprived area of this country. However, even in Guildford there are pockets of deprivation.
	I am a governor of a small primary school located on one of Guildford's council estates. It is a one-form entry primary school. Thirty per cent of the children attending the school have special educational needs and many have behavioural problems. They come from a variety of homes, of which quite a number are broken homes. There is a high proportion of single parents, which brings the constant problem of new boyfriends moving in and of kids being resented by those new boyfriends. Many of the families are on benefit. An acute drugs problem exists on the estate. A large number of children qualify for free school meals. These are all indicators of deprivation.
	Unfortunately, the school has not been able to attract enough pupils. Funding depends upon children being admitted and so the school is now under threat of closure. Since this possibility was announced and we entered into the rigmarole of procedure to react to the announcement, behavioural problems among the kids have shown an enormous upsurge. For many of those kids the school represents an oasis of stability in lives full of instability. The children get from their teachers a certain amount of tender loving care which they do not get in their homes. They are extremely vulnerable children. I believe it is vitally important that, if at all possible, such an oasis of stability should be provided for them.
	Should we lose those children at this early stage, we know quite well what will happen to them. They will become truants in secondary school. They will truant only marginally in the first two or three years and then they will drop out of the system completely. We also know that the minimum cost of sending such children to special schools is £45,000 a year per child. Against that, the cost of £25,000 to fund one extra teacher in a small primary school could be well worth while.
	Some noble Lords will know that I have been thrown into the proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill which is currently going through the House. Further education is not an area about which I knew a great deal, but I have entered a steep learning curve over the past few weeks. Studying for the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill has led me to take on a large amount of reading around the subject. Among the material was a study by the Social Exclusion Unit entitled, Bridging the Gap. I should like to read out to the House one or two paragraphs from the report to illustrate the problem of young people who drop out of the system. Among the main conclusions of the report, it states:
	"There is a clear structure for those who do best at school: full-time study for a further two years, leading to entry into higher education or reasonably skilled and secure employment, with the prospect of good career development in the years ahead. The achievement of high status qualifications and entry into the places they lead to provide a clear goal, and what can be seen as a 'rite of passage' ...
	The passage through the 16-18 years for those who have not achieved the success in school needed to enter these routes, or for whom personal or family problems, or poverty, get in the way of it--disproportionately people who come from backgrounds featuring a variety of kinds of social exclusion--is, by comparison, confused and lacking in clear goals and transition points. It offers less structure than the New Deal offers to older unemployed young people ...
	The young people involved are disproportionately from poor backgrounds in deprived areas. They may suffer multiple disadvantage and few recover from the poor start that they have had. The report shows that where life goes wrong, or continues to go wrong, for young people in this age group, social exclusion in later life is disproportionately the result".
	So, what about the New Deal? Is the New Deal helping such young people? No, because it is not aimed at 16 to 18 year-olds. As we know, many young people, having drifted into petty crime, drugs and so forth, have come off the register. Once that has happened, they are no longer eligible for the New Deal. Unless at some point they are once again picked up by the education and training system--I shall return to that point shortly--almost by definition, they will not be helped by the New Deal.
	Many such young people, and in particular those from areas like Guildford, drift towards London. For that reason, London has a disproportionate number of young people who have come off the register. In addition, London has been experiencing real problems with the New Deal. Some 22 of the 26 New Deal areas with the highest percentage of young people leaving the New Deal system for unknown destinations are based in London. A government-sponsored study of what happens to New Deal participants shows that only 25 per cent of those who left the New Deal system found continuous employment; 40 per cent who found work were unemployed six months later; 31 per cent had left the scheme without attending a single interview; 55 per cent of those who had left the scheme were unemployed six months later and 19 per cent of those were not claiming benefit.
	The Demos study of the socially excluded suggested that the New Deal was not helping very much. It was exacerbating the point because, if one comes off the New Deal in this way, one may incur sanctions and not be able to claim benefit. The Demos study warned that young people simply will not be fed through a programme.
	A BBC "File on Four" programme last summer featured a fellow called Paul. He was a New Deal client who considered leaving the scheme early or not co-operating with it. When asked about the consequences, he said, "I'll end up getting my benefit stopped". When asked what he would do then, he replied, "I'll do what everyone else does--most probably go out and rob or something. Know what I mean? To get money. Or I'll just go sick".
	The Government are addressing that issue. Last week they published a rather splendid document called Connexions. It has a lovely, jazzy cover and concerns a new service which is trying to pick up 16 to 18 year-olds. I believe that that is a vitally important job because we must not let them drift in this way. The service proposes that the Careers Service, as it now is, is reoriented towards social exclusion and that we develop a new generation or class of people who will be mentors on a highly labour-intensive, one-to-10 basis. As I say, I believe that that is admirable in intent.
	I shall read a little about what the service says will happen. It gives an example of a boy called Ahmed whose parents have split up in his final year at school. As a consequence, he does not do as well in his GCSEs as expected. He fails to take up his modern apprenticeship and does not have a job. He drifts in the streets with the 16 to 17 year-olds, and, of course, the great danger is that he will take part in petty crime. The Connexions document states:
	"In the future: The Connexions Service would identify that Ahmed had not taken up his Modern Apprenticeship placement and would make contact with him. He would be encouraged to work with a Personal Adviser who would support his needs. The Personal Adviser would be able to develop a package of support for Ahmed to enable him to take up a Modern Apprenticeship placement; this could include confidence building, exploring his feelings in relation to his family, retaking a couple of GCSEs and providing a mentor. They would also be able to organise accommodation for Ahmed should the situation with his mother not improve".
	Admirable. Splendid. However, I believe that it is most important to bear in mind that Demos said that young people will not simply be fed through a programme.
	That brings me back to my little primary school. It is essential that as far as possible we act when those children are young. It is essential to bring together these facilities. Quite frankly, it is worth spending £25,000 now to save many, many thousands of pounds of expenditure later.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the person who is 23rd on the Speakers' List on a day such as this must spend three-and-a-half hours worrying about whether the point that he is going to make will have been made far better by others before him. When he reaches the stage of rising to his feet and realises that it has not been made, he has another worry: that possibly the point has not been raised because it is not worth making! I hope that what I shall say in this debate is something new and is a point worth making. I believe that I can produce some evidence to that effect.
	Those of us who were in serious politics in the 1960s were under the illusion that the lessons of the 1930s had been learnt and that never again would we see serious poverty taking over a whole section of society, continuing generation after generation and, if anything, increasing. Yet, such is the case today. The corollary, as everyone knows and as the Rowntree report makes clear and as speaker after speaker has said, is ill health, child suffering and crime.
	The answer of the mainstream parties is to juggle a marginal tax rate here and attract inward investment there. Of course, I exaggerate, but it is along those lines. In doing that, they neglect the fact that the whole economic system which now governs most of the world is geared to reducing as much as possible the costs of production. The inevitable result is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; there is a dramatic split between the comfortably off who receive better education and more and more interesting work, and the poor who receive worse education and less and less interesting work.
	Incidentally, that almost universal tendency has a devastating effect on politics today. I believe that it is as a result of that that the Conservative Party, whatever its achievements, has ceased to conserve; the Labour Party as a whole, in spite of the number of speakers on the Benches opposite who have shown real compassion today, seems to have ceased to be the champion of the poor.
	However, surely what is needed is not the marginal charges to which I have referred but a complete acceptance of the need for drastic and revolutionary action. At the very least, we need serious, redistributed taxation. But probably we need much more than that. We must accept the fact that modern technology means that we can divorce economic security from wealth creation. For a long time, many of us believed that the answer lies in the concept of "citizen's income".
	The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who has just entered the Chamber and who, I very much regret, was unable to take part in this debate, was one of those who believed in citizen's income. For a long time, the Liberal Democrat Party was in favour. I well recall the unparalleled tears of rage with which Lady Seear--for so long a very respected leader of our party in this House--greeted the successful and, as she thought, intellectually dishonest efforts to abandon it. I, and the Green Party which I represent, have that as a serious plank of our policy.
	This is not the time or the place to argue the undoubtedly complex issues involved. I shall quote briefly from a pamphlet by that very distinguished writer, James Robertson:
	"Support for [Citizen's Income] continues to grow, especially in Britain and Western Europe. A recent study ... showed that a full Citizen's Income could be introduced in Ireland over a period of three budgets. It would result in nobody receiving less than the poverty line of income; all unemployment and poverty traps being eliminated; and it always being worthwhile for an unemployed person to take up a job".
	There is an intellectual case for citizen's income. However, for the most part, I am content merely to point out that your Lordships have already solved the problem. This Chamber provides satisfying jobs for its Members which are worth while and which stretch us. It pays us for them through an attendance allowance--not, possibly, a citizen's income and certainly not what would have been considered to be a nobleman's income in another age, when a Peer, having to sack his pastry cook, asked, "Can't a fella have his biscuit?" However, it provides a source of income which allows many of us to do this job and make ourselves available for it. Ceteris paribus, this is not at all a bad pattern for what employment should and could eventually be in the whole of society. What is good enough for us is possibly good enough for the socially excluded of this nation.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, it is a privilege to wind up from these Benches after a debate such as this. We must all thank my noble friend Lord Russell, not only for initiating the debate but for so tellingly introducing the subject. Few of us can match the depth or deftness of his analysis. He has given us the opportunity to cover a broad range of issues today. I believe that your Lordships will agree that the debate has succeeded admirably in its purpose in bringing forward many of the issues raised by the Rowntree report.
	I should like to take a few examples of the issues mentioned during the debate. We have the broad issue of income inequalities and poverty. There are the bare statistics that those below 40 per cent of average income have increased by more than 1 million since 1995. Our income inequalities have risen faster than anywhere, except New Zealand, in recent years.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, raised the issue of child poverty and how that has increased over the years. My noble friend Lord Russell raised benefit penalties and disentitlement issues. My noble friend Lord Ezra raised the key issue of fuel poverty and housing problems, including the problem of housing quality. The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Patel, raised issues of public health, poor health and health inequalities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also raised the impact of poverty on crime and levels of imprisonment. A number of your Lordships raised particular issues relating to groups within the community. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford raised the issue of inequalities among the young. Older people were the subject of the speech of my noble friend Lady Barker. My noble friend Lord Russell originally raised the issues of inequalities among the ethnic minority communities, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, raised issues of inequality among women.
	Then we had a whole series of speeches relating to particular communities, such as the mining communities raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, as well as rural communities, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw raised a number of transport issues relating to those rural communities, as well as other issues, such as public services and amenities.
	Then, of course, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised particular conditions and the inequalities suffered by those with CFS/ME, organophosphate poisoning and Gulf War illnesses. I have considerable sympathy with her over the issues that she raised.
	In some ways the most worrying aspects were those raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. There was, for example, the question of the geographical concentration of social exclusion and poverty in particular areas.
	Before I try to pull together the strands of some of the conclusions that your Lordships came to, I should like to concentrate for a few moments on health inequalities and other health issues, since they relate to my own interests.
	Differences in mortality rates between those at the top and those at the bottom of the economic social scale have widened in the past 20 years. They are very heavily influenced by geographical differences. The figures for low birth weights have worsened in exactly the same way. Similarly, obesity is very strongly affected by social and economic class.
	The Acheson report of 1998 remains at the core of the public health debate. It suffered from the disadvantage of not being costed or prioritised, but it performed a valuable role in reminding us of the reasons for health inequalities and of what action should be taken. In my view, the key recommendation was the third: that there should be action to reduce income inequalities and improve living standards of households in receipt of social security benefits. Basically, the conclusion was that benefit levels were inadequate to maintain good health. The public health White Paper published the following spring said that the story of health inequality was clear: the poorer a person is, the more likely he or she is to be ill and die younger.
	But there was considerable disappointment with the Government's response to the Acheson Committee. There were key targets relating to cancer, mental illness, cardiac disease and accidents, but it was not clear, despite the fact that the link to social conditions was accepted, that there was any kind of poverty target. Without such targets, Acheson now risks the same fate as the Black report.
	I acknowledge that the context has changed. The last government would not even allow the use of the word "inequalities" in their documents about health; they would respond only to "health variations". So we have made some progress.
	A recent report on cot deaths highlighted the link to poverty again. One in 200 of low income families--a parent under 25 and unsupported by a partner--suffers a cot death, compared with one in 8,500 in families where the parent is over 25 and supported by a partner.
	The UN Development Programme now considers the UK to be one of the most unequal industrialised countries in the world. The UK has seen the greatest growth of social inequality of any European country in recent years.
	Low income is the greatest risk factor when it comes to ill health. This has been clear since 1837, when the first Superintendent of Statistics, William Farr, published his report. But it has always been an unpopular message. Edwin Chadwick had to publish his 1842 report, Condition of the Labouring Population, himself when the Poor Law Commission refused to do so. The Black report in 1980 was similarly buried.
	The Widening Gap report, published just last month, said that poverty levels in Britain were far too high for us to expect to see inequalities in health fall. The authors' conclusion was that changes in social security under previous governments had directly led to greater inequalities and specifically greater health inequalities. The report's conclusion was that the poorest 20 per cent would be 20 per cent better off if the previous government had not reduced social security benefits, and that the ratio of the richest to poorest 20 per cent would have been reduced from 9:1 to 5:1. That is an extraordinary figure.
	To their credit, the present Government have recognised that action needs to be taken across the board. The former Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, said on 17th March 1999:
	"Promoting better health is not just a matter for the NHS or for social services. This is a job for the whole government, joined up government. All the Cabinet are working together to tackle the things that make people ill".
	He also recognised that:
	"Poverty is a principal source of ill health. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner".
	As Acheson suggested, there should above all be concentration on the first five years of life. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, graphically illustrated, correlations between low birth weight babies and future poverty and under-achievement are absolutely clear. We on these Benches welcome the Prime Minister's promise to eliminate child poverty by 2020. That is reflected in the first annual report on tackling poverty and social exclusion, but we are not convinced that the targets are very challenging.
	I want to come on to some of the points made by your Lordships, particularly the welcome given to some of the Government's actions, apart from the targets concerning child poverty.
	We have the question of the increase in child benefit and the recent notification of the increase in minimum wage. Indeed, we have the principle--the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, was extremely eloquent on this subject--of the establishment of the minimum wage. We have some of the transport initiatives that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw reported. There is the New Deal, but I suggest that the Minister take note of the devastating criticism of aspects of the New Deal by my noble friend Baroness Sharp.
	There are some of the very impressive initiatives from the New Opportunities Fund mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. There are the social regeneration projects to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There is also the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. I see today that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been given the task of co-ordinating poverty policies for the Government, which of course must be welcomed. But the jury is out. We do not yet know the impact of many of these policies. Your Lordships have made it very clear today that what has been done so far is, quite frankly, not enough.
	During the course of the debate, a number of important aspects have been raised. My noble friend Lord Russell raised the issue of research, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Much better research is needed. We need to mend the holes in the safety net. We need minimum standards for access to services, as my noble friend Lady Miller advocated. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the whole issue of age discrimination.
	A number of issues were raised in relation to the voluntary sector, the regional focus and the presentation of policies to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred. Those are all extremely important matters. The need for improved insulation was raised, as were all sorts of issues surrounding transport and housing.
	But the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford stressed the problem of poverty. That is the principal reason for the inequalities that we have been debating today. We need major improvements to the benefits system. There needs to be a change in our attitudes and we must not, as my noble friend Lord Russell said, denigrate benefits. There must be a sense of urgency, as many noble Lords have said. We cannot wait for the grand design to take effect, as the right reverend Prelate said. We must target tax and benefits with the minimum stigma. We need minimum income standards. We also need to be intensely practical.
	The Prime Minister said that if the next Labour Government have not raised the living standards of the poorest by the end of their time in office, they will have failed. But there are conflicting messages coming from the Government. Listen to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers: the reality is that wealth creation is now more important than wealth distribution. Yet we read this Monday that redistribution, the "R" word, is coming back into vogue. What is the reality? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Do the Government believe that increasing the tax burden for the well-off and raising benefits for the poorest is a policy option?
	Previous Labour governments did not recognise adequately the need for wealth creation. This Government have rightly reacted against that. However, in doing so, they have lost sight of the need for redistribution. Until the Government recognise that wealth creation and redistribution go hand in hand, then the problems of poverty and inequality will not be solved.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this timely debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is a great privilege for me to wind up the debate for my party.
	The debate has been informative and constructive and there is agreement in all corners of the House that we must work together to eradicate poverty and social exclusion. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, they cause immense human suffering. Although I shall be critical tonight of the Government's policies and lack of direction, I have no doubt that the Minister is as personally committed as the rest of us to do everything she can to alleviate those concerns. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the Labour Party appears to have ceased to be the champion of the poor.
	On these Benches, we have some concern about the term "social exclusion". It suggests that there is a deliberate attempt to exclude certain parts of society. We believe it is more helpful to look at those areas which suffer high unemployment and crime, poor housing, weak family links and high rates of welfare dependency and to understand their real causes and effects.
	There is also a clear philosophical difference in approach between the Government and these Benches. The Government favour state intervention and state prescription to solve those problems. However, we believe that the key point is to have an economy which is vibrant and robust and which generates opportunities for employment and wealth creation. It is only by creating wealth in the first place that it is ever possible for it to be shared.
	The timing of this debate must be hugely embarrassing for the Government. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed out the article in the Telegraph. The Minister will probably tell me it is all rubbish. She just has. But the Government's poverty policy has apparently been condemned as a shambles by a Cabinet Office report which says that there are too many initiatives and no strategy or co-ordination.
	What is more worrying about today's article is the report that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to be given a prominent role in integrating the many regional initiatives, as the so-called "zone tsar". After the fiasco of the Millennium Dome, that hardly bodes well. Will the Minister indicate what his role and responsibilities are to be? I have not given the Minister notice of that question but I should be grateful if she will write to me. We have given her a copy of the newspaper article.
	The timing of the Rowntree report was inconvenient for the Government as it came days after they launched a Cabinet Office report entitled Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, dismissing the existence of the north-south divide.
	The Rowntree report shows that twice as many people are receiving benefits in the north-east as in the south-east. Indeed, one of the authors contradicted the Cabinet Office report, telling the Daily Mirror that,
	"there is no doubt there is a strong North-South divide".
	The Minister will probably say that the Rowntree report fails to take account of new government policies. But the report says clearly and starkly that the problems continue unabated.
	The Minister will also probably say, "It is all the fault of the Tories as this report covers the period before our reforms were introduced". But one of the authors told the Northern Echo:
	"The Government didn't start introducing its main measures until at least 2 years after it come to power and, if it had got going earlier, we might be beginning to see the benefits now".
	One of New Labour's main pledges was to tackle social exclusion. The figures in that report are a damning indictment of two-and-a-half years of government by sound-bite, with few effective measures being taken. It reveals an enormous credibility gap between the Government's rhetoric on social policy and the reality of life in some areas of Britain. One only has to mention the former junior Defence Minister, the Member for Liverpool Walton, for the Government's spin doctors to go into overdrive.
	It would be impossible to cover all the issues relevant to this subject. However, I wish to concentrate on two specific areas which are relevant to the report--social problems in rural Britain and the plight of lone parents.
	Several noble Lords have mentioned the problems in the countryside. My noble friend Lady Byford drew the House's attention to the Cabinet Office report Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in the Countryside. In its election manifesto, new Labour said that it recognised the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas and that the Conservatives did not. That seems rather at odds with the humiliating local authority by-election and European election results which New Labour has endured in rural areas since May 1997.
	Ministers and their spin doctors seem to forget that behind the statistics are tragic stories of human misery, bankruptcy and suicide not seen in our countryside for generations. Bureaucracy, uncertainty, increased fuel prices, growing crime levels, declining services and declining access to services all blight the lives of families in country areas. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister was booed as he left the NFU's annual meeting. At least this time no one had a chocolate eclair to hand.
	The Government have set up a task force to deal with the problems of urban areas. In view of the devastating crisis in the countryside, will the Government consider setting up a rural task force? After all, 60 local authorities have urged the Government to do just that.
	I turn to the group with the highest prevalence of poverty: one-parent families. It is a depressing statistic that three in five lone parents in the United Kingdom live in poverty. Lone parents have overtaken pensioners as the group with the lowest average income. On current benefits, lone parents who have lived in poverty for some time cannot afford to eat healthily. Lone mothers are 14 times more likely than other mothers to go without food themselves in order to meet the needs of their children. Many experience severe hardship, poor housing, health problems, lack of access to financial services and debt. The removal of the lone parent rate of family premium in April 1999 reduced housing benefit and council tax benefit for lone parents in paid work and for lone parents moving from income support into paid work.
	Despite the Labour election manifesto pledging effective help for lone parents, the Government's own estimates for last year showed that up to 395,000 will have lost out. Working lone parents faced maximum average national losses of £10.20 per week. The losses in housing benefit and council tax benefit alone amounted to as much as £9.35 for some lone parents.
	According to the Child Poverty Action Group and the Microsimulation Unit of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, after three budgets a considerable proportion of lone-parent families in the poorest income groups are worse off than they would be under policy existing prior to the 1997 election.
	For most lone parents and their children, the most effective route out of poverty is getting a job. The Minister made that point last night. Indeed, most lone parents want to work at some time. That means real jobs in the real world rather than subsidised placements that are no more than an artificial attempt to help the Government to meet their next publicised target.
	Given the rate at which housing benefit and council tax benefit are withdrawn as income rises, lone parents going out to work can lose up to 85 per cent of the extra income from the working families' tax credit. On top of that, when they move into work, lone parents' expenditure on travel and clothing increases and they lose the right to claim "passported benefits" such as free prescriptions, sight tests and free schools meals.
	Our current system means that many lone parents simply cannot afford to enter education because student loans are treated by the DSS as income rather than debt. Furthermore, those lone parents who manage to graduate from university and enter employment will find themselves using their WFTC to repay their student loans. What plans do the Government have to address that issue and ensure that lone parents have equality of access to further education?
	We on these Benches recognise that to tackle the symptoms of social exclusion takes a realistic and intelligent appraisal of the changes in society and the economy. We need cogent and sensible policy-making that promotes opportunities for people to move out of poverty through private sector job creation, wider home ownership and community-led solutions on health, education and law and order. We need to extend opportunities for all and not reinforce the culture of dependency that has done so much to reinforce the present problems.
	What is clear is the failure of this Government meaningfully to tackle poverty and social exclusion. This is not political point scoring, when so many of the Government's own supporters are voicing their concerns at the lack of co-ordination and insight into how to tackle these problems.
	Unlike my noble friend Lord Lucas, I cannot congratulate the Government. They need to do much more to tackle these issues and do so in a more coherent, integrated and intelligent manner.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating the debate. I should also like to thank--at least I think so--the young researchers of the Rowntree report for doing their best to hold us up to the mark, however uncomfortable that may be on occasion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, vigorously described the major contributions tonight, which to some extent spares me the time in doing that. However, I thank your Lordships for a fascinating, wide-ranging debate. It ranged from small, rural buses to VAT on village halls; from Welsh devolution (your Lordships will not be surprised if I duck that) to the Independent Living Fund and CFS sufferers, all more or less--sometimes less--related to the Rowntree report. Noble Lords will understand if I seek to answer those points primarily related to the report. I, or my colleagues, will seek to respond by correspondence to some of the other points raised.
	Noble Lords all agree that far too many people are living on low incomes. The numbers of people on low income, defined as a proportion of the population living in households with below half mean average incomes, or about 60 per cent median incomes, increased dramatically between 1979 and 1996-97 from one household in 10 to one in four: from 5 million to 14 million people. That is also as much about widening inequality as about poverty, which may mark us off from some of the Scandinavian countries rightly quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
	Worse than that, however, is the fact that many people spend long periods living on a low income. Around one in 10 of the population spent all seven years between 1991 and 1997 living on a low income; that is in the three bottom deciles of the income distribution. They were in persistent poverty, which scars health, aspiration, prospects and self-esteem. Therefore, low income, and in particular the problem of persistent low income, is fundamental to poverty and social exclusion.
	However, we also know that the problems of poverty and social exclusion are related to a wider range of factors than simply low incomes. Just as welfare is more than simply social security, so people's access to good quality housing and public services has a major impact on their standard of living. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that is what in the sixties we used to call "the social wage".
	There is no easy way to tackle problems of poverty and social exclusion. Despite the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, we are acting to raise the incomes of the poorest and seeking to row back on the deprivation we have inherited over the past 15 years. We have improved the income of those most in need for pensioners, children and families most at risk of being trapped on low incomes for long periods of time.
	However, as we can see by looking at the experience of the past 20 years, poverty cannot be eradicated by just raising benefits. That may be one of the profound points of difference between myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I believe he stated that it is not the business of the benefit system to get people into jobs but to keep them fit and well until they get jobs. I hope I have quoted him correctly; I certainly do not mean to misquote him. That passive approach, which I deplore, is precisely why over the past 20 years we have seen expenditure on benefits double and so at the same time have poverty and social exclusion. That response has not worked and is not one we shall seek to perpetuate.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has quoted me accurately. If she is able to explain why this increase in poverty and social exclusion was caused, in her opinion, by the passivity of the benefits system, I would understand something which at present I do not.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Earl by responding tonight. However, perhaps I may put it another way. I did some "ready reckoner" sums. We could increase all benefits by £10 per week. That would be useful and might pay for an extra couple of pints of milk and a yoghurt each day, or two cinema tickets at the end of the week. However, people would still be poor. Only a small proportion would go over and above half-average incomes. Passively to increase benefits and do little else would cost perhaps an estimated £20 billion-- indeed, as much as we spend on schools and as much as we spend on hospitals--and people would still be poor. That is my response to the noble Earl. That pattern has not, and will not, work.
	We must address not just what I would call the "presenting" problems of poverty--for example, low income, about which we do not disagree--but also the reasons for it. We must do so by improving employment prospects, by reforming public services and by helping people to save for their retirement. That cannot be done quickly. In order to improve employment opportunities for those of working age we must not only help this generation of working age people but also ensure that all children leave school with the skills that they need to survive in the modern labour market. To improve pensioners' incomes in the future we need to ensure that all working age people save for their retirement now.
	Our key public services are suffering from decades of neglect and cannot be turned around overnight. It is a long-term strategy. Low incomes, poor education, poor health and criminality, all of which have been mentioned tonight, affect the same people and the same places. I have in mind the poorest communities that have been drifting further and further away from the rest of Britain.
	The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to say that geography matters. For example, the poorest 284 wards in England and Wales, with a population of 2.5 million, have nearly half--45 per cent--of the working population inactive and unemployed, compared to half that figure for England and Wales as a whole. They also experience double the rate of deprivation, and yet--this is where the problem begins to present itself to government--half of our fellow citizens who are poor do not live in poor areas. Therefore, we need targeted help and we need to work in partnership with local authorities; indeed, the sort of work and help that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is doing in chairing the New Opportunities Board. We need targeted help but we also need national help.
	In quoting the article from the Daily Telegraph on regional strategy, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that that targeted help was in chaos. That is absurd. With a dozen or so pilot zones, budgets, agencies and initiatives, the Government have recognised that the time now is right to strengthen the co-ordinating structures between those initiatives. I hope that I am not misquoting him, but I believe the chief executive of Sandwell council said that he had "one of everything". However, most of the time we receive complaints from city councils that they do not have one of everything and, indeed, that they have "not enough" of most things.
	The need to balance the targeting on some of our rural and poorest communities, especially those belonging to the old mining, shipyard and steel communities, with national strategies informs government action. Key groups--such as lone teenage mothers--suffer from multiple problems of low incomes, lack of work, few skills, poor health and poor prospects--so the Social Exclusion Unit is both looking at "communities of exclusion", if I may use that phrase, as well as at the geographies of exclusion in trying to bring them back into the mainstream of our society.
	Poverty and social exclusion are also about the lack of prospects, opportunities, self-worth and self-esteem. I remember a social worker friend of mine telling me some 30 years ago that the biggest problem for poor people is the low self-esteem that they have. Life happens to them; they do not control it. We need only compare a student studying for a university degree with an unskilled lone parent who has been out of work for many years: they have identical incomes but totally unidentical prospects. As I said, being poor is when your life is something that happens to you. You do not own your opportunities. You do not own your future.
	Who are the poor? They are not primarily pensioners--I will return to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, later--because well over 70 per cent of pensioners now have over half the average income. The number of pensioners in the bottom fifth between 1979 and 1996-97 has halved from 47 per cent to 24 per cent, which is actually lower than the proportion applying to the population as a whole. So the poor are not pensioners, although there are some poor pensioners.
	The poor are not primarily adults of working age because 80 per cent of those are on incomes of above half average earnings. However, some adults of working age, especially women and lone parents, are very poor. They are not primarily disabled people. Again, nearly 80 per cent of disabled people have earnings or incomes of above half the average income. If they are not pensioners, adults of working age or disabled people, who are the poor? As my noble friend Lady Gale said, the poor in this country are children. Indeed, one-third of all children are poor. The face of poverty in this country is the face of a child.
	By 1996-97, one in three children lived in households with below average incomes--three times the rate of 1979. By the mid-1990s the UK had one of the highest proportions of children in relative poverty. I know that we are also talking about inequality, but, nonetheless, that represents one of the highest proportions in the European Union. By the end of that period, families with children were more likely to be living in low-income households than any other group. What an inheritance for those children, as well as for an incoming government!
	As the Prime Minister said:
	"Our historic aim will be for ours to be the first generation to end child poverty ... it is a 20-year mission".
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer went even further, when he said:
	"It is not enough to tackle absolute poverty and simply prevent destitution. We should do more. It is not fair that children should be disadvantaged from the start of their lives because of who their parents are, what school they go to [and] where they live".
	Therefore, we have introduced a wide range of measures to improve the incomes of low-income families. I hope that that will engage with that "travesty"--if I may call it that--of our record so far, as presented by the noble Lord from the Opposition Benches. I think that he was teasing us. But just in case he was not, I shall try to address his points more seriously.
	The combined impact of the financial measures introduced in the Budgets of 1998 and 1999 will raise the incomes of the poorest fifth of families with children by £1,000 a year. On average, households gained from the three Labour Budgets by about 5 per cent, but those in the bottom fifth gained by nearly double that figure. Those families with children in the bottom fifth gained by three times or 15 per cent. That is a significant achievement in just a couple of years by any judgment: £4 billion extra pounds has gone to families with children and about two-fifths of that sum has gone to those in the greatest poverty.
	I could give noble Lords a dozen examples, but I shall give just one. For children under the age of 11 in workless families the value of the income support allowance has risen in two years from £16.90 to £24.90; in other words, it has risen by 50 per cent in that time. I hope that no one will accuse us of neglecting properly to address the issue of child poverty within our resources.
	Our strategy is not just to improve the incomes of low-income families with children but also to tackle the causes of that low income. We know that those children who are poor suffer from a double disadvantage. First, they live in fractured families; and, secondly, they live in workless families. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Northbourne, rightly drew our attention to the problems of children in fractured families. They reminded us that children need the support of both parents, even if they do not remain married. We know from all the research that we have on the outcomes for children of lone parents that the daughter of a lone parent is likely to flourish if her mother is in work and, similarly, that the son of a lone parent is likely to flourish if he is in contact with his natural father. Those are our best predictors of breaking the cycle of deprivation which those children would otherwise inherit.
	We also seek to overcome the problems of poverty among children and to overcome the problems of persistent poverty. For example, in 1998 over 800,000 children lived in families that had spent at least five years on means-tested benefits. Moreover, 2.2 million children--almost a fifth--live in families without work. Again, we have the worst record in this respect of any country in the EU. Children are spending large parts of their childhood living in households where no adult goes to work and where, all too often, there is only one adult in the family. As I said, they suffer a double deprivation which if we do not intervene will scar them for life.
	All the research shows--and there has been no dissent on this tonight--that work is the best and most secure route out of poverty for families. Finding work helps to lift people out of poverty, while long periods out of work decrease the chances that parents will return to work. Therefore, when we seek to help lone parents and disabled people back into work, we know that we need to tackle the issues of childcare, the fear of the risk of losing benefit, poor health, low human capital, low motivation, poor skills, poor financial incentives and lack of knowledge about available jobs. We are trying to work across the whole of that waterfront.
	Our New Deal for lone parents seeks to help lone mothers, particularly lone mothers who wish to return to work. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has suggested--and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford has asked--we seek to adapt the benefit system in order to sustain that movement into work. Lone parents are understandably reluctant to take jobs that do not pay. The new working families' tax credit, with its generous childcare tax allowance, will improve the incentives to work. As a result, the financial benefit for a family entering work, taking a typical entry wage job, has increased from a net gain of £30 a week to nearer £42 a week. Together with reforms to income tax and to NICs, the WFTC could increase employment by 47,000 over one year and by as much as nearly 300,000 over the long term.
	Apart from the problem of low income, we need also to tackle the wider problems of housing and health because they exacerbate each other, as many of your Lordships have said tonight. Just to take one example, we know that nearly half of all lone parents smoke. That is twice the national average for young people. They are poor because they smoke; they smoke because they are poor. A quarter of lone parents have limiting illnesses mainly associated with smoking, and so do their children. Some 75 per cent of the illnesses of the children of lone parents are respiratory related and correlated with their parents' smoking. As Alan Marsh has said, and as the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Rea, have said tonight, we need not just a welfare-to-work programme but a welfare-to-health programme, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said--I agree with him--a welfare-to-heat programme. We are engaged in providing that.
	We have made the tackling of child poverty a priority, because unless we tackle that we shall build up problems for the future because we know that poverty, like wealth, is largely inherited, largely unmerited and unearned. We know that poverty is a cause of poverty. For example, people raised in a family experiencing unemployment are, when they grow up, about twice as likely to have prolonged periods of unemployment themselves. Although children of poor families may move up one or two deciles of income as compared with their parents, for most people the movement is short range, short term, and down the snake they come.
	Poverty should not be a birthright. Our strategy is to break that cycle and to halt the transmission of low expectations, low aspirations and low outcomes from parent to child. That means we need to invest our children with the best possible start in life as the dowry our society owes them. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, absolutely rightly said, the periods before and immediately after birth are crucial to a child's development. At 22 months children whose parents are in social classes 1 and 2 are already 14 percentage points further up the educational development scale than children whose parents are in social classes 4 or 5. When they start school, they begin to fall even further behind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, by the time they are in their teens they are already beginning, almost literally, to vote with their feet. That is why we have introduced a new short start programme, modelled to some extent on the American headstart programme, to promote the well-being of children. We are spending £500 million on building 250 local programmes, as well as investing a further £19 billion in education across the board.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, movingly said, there are other groups of vulnerable young people who find it difficult to make the transition to adult life. I refer to teenage mothers, children living in the care of local authorities and 16 to 18 year-olds dropping out of education and training. The long-term life chances of these children are often significantly worse than those of other children. We have cross-government programmes which help to discourage teenage conceptions on the ground that children should not have children, as the Prime Minister said. As your Lordships will know, a Bill currently going through this House steered by my noble friend Lord Hunt seeks to encourage local authorities to continue the care of children who are leaving care. I believe that that Bill has been warmly welcomed by your Lordships. Therefore we have a comprehensive programme of action to tackle child poverty, to tackle the causes of child poverty and to help the most vulnerable children as they make the transition to adult life.
	We have also to address the problems of people of working age, because they enter poverty for two reasons: half of them enter poverty because they have no job or they lose it and the rest through family breakdown or the birth of an extra child. People of working age are poor if they are not in work. The proportion of working age households with no one in work has doubled since 1979. There is only one escape route for people of working age and that is into earnings. Two-thirds of those who move out of low incomes do so when someone in their family gets a job or increases their earnings. If he gets a job and she gets a part-time job, they then become work rich rather than work poor. To achieve that aim we have to establish the right macro-economic framework, which we are doing. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for 20 years. Over 700,000 more people are now in work. The number of unemployed young people has fallen by more than half. The number of long-term unemployed has also halved. Our record so far is good, though we still have more to do.
	Yet there are still substantial numbers of people who are out of work, inactive and depend on social security to survive. The number of economically inactive men outnumbers the number of registered unemployed by more than two to one. Around one in seven of the working age population are out of work claiming income replacement benefits and nearly 3 million of those have been out of work for more than five years. Many of these people want to work. They are the hidden jobless. Around 1 million disabled people without a job want to work, especially if we can help them tackle the barriers that block their way. That applies also to lone parents.
	Work is available. There are more than a million vacancies across Britain, spread pretty evenly across the regions. Our New Deals are springing people back into work. But we also need to make work pay. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity talked powerfully about the effects of both the working families' tax credit and, above all, the national minimum wage, which has helped more than 1.5 million people--two-thirds of them women--to spring the poverty trap.
	My noble friend Lady Howells thoughtfully described the situation of people in ethnic minorities. She is right to say that seven in 10 households with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi head of family were in the poorest fifth of incomes either because they had high unemployment among the men or low employment among the women or large families or low pay. But the good news is that with the New Deal some 57 per cent of ethnic minority young people and 59 per cent of whites--that is a virtually identical figure--have left the New Deal to enter work. The future is more promising. We know, however, that work is not appropriate for all. That is why from 2001 we shall provide the 175,000 poorest disabled people who cannot work with a new income guarantee--for single adults, children and couples--thus establishing their incomes.
	I wish to say a few words about pensioners. We want to ensure that all pensioners have a life to look forward to. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said that pensioners were being left behind. That is simply not true. Over the past 20 years or so pensioners' incomes have on average increased much faster than the incomes of the rest of us--by 60 per cent in real terms. However, there are still some who struggle to make do, even though income support has kept pace with the rise in real earnings rather than just prices. That is why our strategy is twofold. We seek to help those who are poorest now, mainly elderly widows who need help with taking up the guaranteed minimum income, and we seek to reform our pensions strategy by adding to the basic state pension access either to a state second pension or a stakeholder pension where a good occupational pension is not in place. I have explained what we are doing for pensioners, for people of working age and for children.
	We welcome the Rowntree report Monitoring poverty and social exclusion. However, I add a note of caution. The report showed the position mainly in 1997-98 when the key statistics for WFTC and the national minimum wage had not yet come through. Many noble Lords have spoken about research tonight, and we shall be monitoring this in our annual reports, Opportunity for all, in which we shall be measuring our progress in eradicating poverty against our agreed poverty indicators.
	We accept the reality of poverty; we accept its many facets; we accept the damage it causes. Beveridge understood those connections more than 50 years ago--so do we. That is why, together with our New Deals, the minimum wage, WFTC, our work for children and our work for pensioners, I believe that we have made more progress, although we need to make even more, in the past two to three years than we have seen over the past 15 years. We have a lot to do, but we are getting there.

Earl Russell: My Lords, this has been a debate in which it has been a privilege to take part. The House collectively has been absolutely at its best. It is not often that one is allowed to take part in a debate where there are 26 speakers--all of them relevant, all of them good, all of them drawing on different and diverse bodies of experience--and where every speaker on the list beyond number 20 has a major new point to contribute. That really is a pleasure.
	I thank the Minister very warmly for replying to the debate in the spirit in which it was conducted. It was a debate in which there were some fairly deep divisions of principle and some fairly deep divisions about likely solutions. But there was also a large amount of common ground.
	I agree with Mrs Malaprop that comparisons are odorous. I am not making a comparison but emphasising the need for diversity in paying special tribute to the contributions of the right reverend Prelates. The Church has been for centuries practically the only institution represented in every parish of the country. Its knowledge and its concern for community life owe a great deal to that fact. Were the Church's parochial structure to fall victim to mammon, I believe that not only Christians would be the losers.
	It is not a figure of speech to say that I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken--I should like to thank them very warmly indeed. Having done so, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Census Order 2000

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the particulars in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order laid before the House on 10th January, and the provisions of Article 6 of the draft order in so far as they relate to those particulars, be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this rather peculiar wording for a Motion arises from the fact that the draft census order is a unique instrument in that some topics may be included in the census without a formal Motion of approval--that is, by negative instrument--whereas others can be included only if they receive the approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution. Those items requiring such approval are set out in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order.
	The draft order gives effect to the Government's proposals for a census in England and Wales on 29th April 2001. Those proposals were set out in a White Paper in March 1999.
	Under the Census Act 1920, an Order in Council is necessary to prescribe the date of the census, the people to be counted and those to be responsible for making the census returns and the information to be given in those returns.
	We have had a census in Britain every 10 years since 1801, except for 1941, and they have traditionally been held in April because that allows for the necessary fieldwork to be conducted at a time when there are sufficient daylight hours and less risk of poor weather conditions; and 29th April has been chosen to avoid Easter and the major holiday periods.
	Following devolution, separate legislative arrangements will be made in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the censuses there. However, a common date is proposed throughout the United Kingdom. The date also complies with European Union guidelines for the 2001 round of censuses.
	The categories of people to be counted are set out in Article 4 of the draft order. The people to be responsible for making the returns are covered by Article 5. The information to be given in the returns is covered by Article 6 and is set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order.
	The final lay-out of the questions that will appear on the census form will be published in regulations, to be laid before the House once the Order in Council has been made, setting out the detailed conduct of the census and containing facsimile copies of the forms, and to be approved by negative resolution. A few questions set out in Schedule 2 are either new to the census in England and Wales or have been significantly revised since the 1991 census. Some, but not all, of them need the affirmative resolution.
	Item 2 refers to the relationship of each person in a household of two or more people to the first person on the form and to the relationship between each person in that household. This new style of question expands the information that was collected in the 1991 census, and responses will provide statistics for more detailed analysis of household and family structure to reflect the needs for information on an ever-changing society.
	Item 9 relates to a revised question on ethnic group. The ethnic group question was one of the main successes of the 1991 census. Information from it has been used to provide the baseline figures against which the Government are able to monitor possible racial disadvantage. The wording of the question set out in the draft census order has been extensively researched and tested since the 1991 census, both to meet users' requirements for additional information about people of mixed origin and sub-groups within the "white" population, particularly the "Irish", and to be as acceptable as possible to respondents. The form of the question also allows for respondents to describe their ethnic group in their own words using the "write-in" option.
	Item 10 asks people to assess their own health over the preceding 12 months as either "Good", "Fairly good" or "Not good". The question is new and simple and, although it is subjective, the information from it has been demonstrated in sample surveys to have a good predictive power for health policy and the provision of services, particularly for the elderly.
	Item 11 relates to the provision of unpaid personal help. The Government recognise that an increasing amount of unpaid personal help is given to people with poor health. This new census question will help the understanding of the variations in the need of care and the targeting of resources more effectively.
	The information from a revised question on academic and vocational qualifications in Item 14 will be used to assist the better provision of education and training and monitoring of take-up of government initiatives.
	Item 16(e) relates to the time since last paid employment. This new question will help determine local differences in the periods of unemployment and the extent of long-term unemployment. Information from this question will also be used to assess and monitor disadvantage and exclusion, in education and training planning, in labour market analysis and in mortality and morbidity studies.
	Item 23 seeks to collect information on the lowest floor level of a household's accommodation. This question was included in the census in Scotland in 1991 but is new in England and Wales. The information will help to provide a better measure of households living in potentially unsuitable accommodation, particularly households with children or households with elderly residents or people with a long-term illness living several floors above the ground.
	Your Lordships will be aware that the 2001 census White Paper proposed that a question on religion be included in England and Wales for the first time. The question would help provide information that would supplement the output from the ethnicity question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian subcontinent, who increasingly prefer to identify themselves in terms of their religion. However, as currently worded, the Schedule to the Census Act 1920 does not permit particulars on such a topic to be collected and, consequently, the inclusion of a question in the 2001 census in England and Wales will depend on a change being made to the primary census legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that to effect this change a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the Census (Amendment) Bill, is currently being considered by this House.
	The White Paper also set out the principles governing the treatment of the information given in the returns. Census information is used only for statistical purposes. The Census Act makes it a criminal offence for Census Office staff or agents providing services to the Registrar General to pass on personal census information to anyone without lawful authority. The forms will be destroyed after processing has been completed. Electronic copies of them will be kept secure and closed to public inspection for 100 years. Great care will be taken to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information about identifiable individuals in the tables produced from the census, particularly those for local areas or specific sub-groups of the population.
	The security of census data and the measures to be taken to protect confidentiality in output will be subject to independent reviews, the results of which will be announced prior to the census. In short, I can assure the House about the confidentiality of all census information. The Census Office in England and Wales, along with its partners in Scotland and Northern Ireland, has an outstanding record for maintaining that confidentiality and one which it is determined to maintain.
	The main national and local results will be released to a committed timetable as speedily as possible over a short period of time. The timetable will be announced once all the production systems have been fully rehearsed. Under the terms of the census legislation the Registrars General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland each have a statutory responsibility to report the results of the census to their respective Parliaments.
	The 2001 census in England and Wales is expected to cost an estimated £202.3 million, of which about three quarters falls into the next two financial years. The census will meet crucial requirements for statistical information. The burden on those who have to complete the census forms has been kept to a minimum, consistent with those needs, and the questions have been fully tested and found acceptable. I am confident that the census package as proposed strikes the right balance between meeting the essential needs for statistics while minimising the burden on the public, and I commend the draft order to the House.
	Moved, That the particulars in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order laid before the House on 10th January, and the provisions of Article 6 of the draft order in so far as they relate to those particulars, be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. We on these Benches do not believe that the provisions are in any way contentious and we are therefore happy to support them.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I too endorse the noble Lord's statement. We on this side of the House certainly support the order. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining a number of questions likely to be in the census, particularly those on ethnicity, which have caused some concern in the past. I assure the Minister that on the basis of previous experience, the community feels comfortable with the way in which those questions have been put to them in the past. I hope that the census will receive a good response. I would plead with the Minister that, since we are waiting until April 29th 2001, it might be appropriate to ensure adequate publicity so that all communities are aware of the purpose of this particular census and to give them the right information so that they again feel comfortable.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support. I shall certainly take back the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about publicity for the provisions of the census, particularly among ethnic communities. I am sure that that will be at the forefront of the minds of representatives of the Office for National Statistics.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wandsworth Prison

The Earl of Longford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Wandsworth prison.
	My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is leaving the Chamber, because I was going to pay him a compliment of a dubious character.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall stay for it.

The Earl of Longford: I am not so sure that he would welcome it. I visited Wandsworth prison not so long ago during the time of the previous governor. I said to him, "Hello Governor. In my eyes you are the ideal prison governor". He said, "Don't tell anybody that because it would ruin my reputation". So I had better be careful about congratulating my noble friend on anything at all. It might damage his career, which is still in the melting pot, as I understand it. I am glad that he waited long enough to hear that. I am not going to say any more about my noble friend. He has gone anyway.
	I am honoured and flattered that so many noble Lords have put their names down to speak in the debate, which is limited to one-and-a-half hours. We shall not have many minutes. Even the Minister will not have many minutes. I am nevertheless grateful. Perhaps the Government Whip, whom we respect so much, will inform me when I have overstepped my limit. I am allowed only 10 minutes, but of course I could go on for hours.
	We are told in the Christian gospel, "Judge not, that ye be not judged", but it is impossible not to make a judgment here. The story of Wandsworth prison revealed to us by the much revered chief inspector is a terrible story. I do not know if it is any worse than that of Wormwood Scrubs, but at any rate it is extremely bad. We cannot restrict our criticisms to the prison or to the people in charge of it. One must remember that the Prison Service has a very bad record, as the report reveals. For six months the prison was left without a governor. That was the fault of the Prison Service. What was the Home Office doing?
	Therefore, I am bound to put the question, of which I have given notice to the Minister: how far does the Minister accept responsibility for the failure--in this case, the signal failure--of the Prison Service? I hope that he will say that he accepts responsibility and that he will take steps to improve matters in the future. We have seen this dreadful report and we all look to the future rather than to the past.
	Those of us who have been visiting prisoners for half a century know that Wandsworth has the reputation of being the worst prison. Many years ago when I visited Maidstone prison, I said on leaving to a prison officer, "I like this prison, you know"--which was a rather stupid and unwise thing to say--"I like this prison. I wouldn't mind being governor here". I shall not say exactly what he said in reply--he used rather stronger words than I can quote to your Lordships--but the gist was, "Any fool can manage this place. You wouldn't last five minutes at Wandsworth". Wandsworth had the reputation of being the worst prison. The Government are tackling that reputation head on and I give them full credit for facing up to it.
	At last the story has been told in detail by our much respected Chief Inspector of Prisons. What are we going to do about it? We can all surely accept the general opinion of the chief inspector about what makes a healthy prison and what does not. One thing that does not make a healthy prison, which is brought out clearly in the report, is a situation in which the prisoners are frightened of the staff. There is something particular about the Wandsworth culture. I repeat that phrase because it is important in this connection--"the Wandsworth culture". I have known the Wandsworth culture for half a century. How on earth can it be put right?
	I do not underestimate the task facing the Minister. I know that he cannot do it tomorrow, but I want to know how the Government are setting out to tackle the Wandsworth culture. I have met the chief inspector since the report was published. I had good talks with him and with the area manager. I am greatly impressed by what has been achieved in the area plan. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that in due course. The new plan is very good.
	I visited the prison last week. I met the governor and deputy governor. Luckily, on my way into the prison I ran into the Catholic chaplain, whom I have known in the past. He told me that there has been a great change in the most criticised of all the departments--what was called the segregation unit. The Minister will tell us that it has been given a new name, which is important. I do not doubt the Minister. I want to be on the side of optimism. Things are happening there.
	I do not want the Minister to feel that I am saying in a snide kind of way that I do not know at all what is going on there and that I do not like the smell of it. I do like the smell of it, but the point is, what is going to happen? It is a tremendous task to put right the horrible culture of half a century or more. How are the Government going to do it? The Chief Inspector has pointed the way. A change in management is needed. But how does one change the management without changing the managers?
	The Home Office has changed the governor. I knew the previous governor. I liked him very much. I said to him, "In my view, you're a good governor". He said, "Don't tell anyone that. It would ruin my reputation". But he has now been moved. I have met the new governor and his deputy. I was very much impressed, as I have been impressed by the area manager too. There is a very impressive team in charge of the prison so I am asking the Minister to give them inspiration.
	Above all, it is a hell of a task. Just before coming to the House--only this evening--I received a letter from the Prison Officers' Association. It is very easy to be nasty about the Prison Officers' Association and to blame everything on it. I do not do that. I am on its side. I should like to think that I am its friend, although I do not think it believes that I am. Nevertheless, the Prison Officers' Association is worried about the damage to the morale of the prison staff caused by these rather crucifying reports. We have to think of the prison staff. I am told--I know only what I read in the letter--that prisoners are attacking the prison officers more frequently as a result of the decline in prison officers' morale. I do not know whether that is true, but that is what I have been told. We have to face that fact. It is no use sitting here saying that everything can be altered. Over half a century the prison staff have treated prisoners in a certain way--I think in a rather bullying way. How are we going to alter that?
	That is the great question before us. I know that the Minister means well and the Government mean well. I am on the side of all their efforts. It is a tremendous task. I look with hope to the Minister to tell us how they are going to set about it.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, anyone who has an interest in what is going on in our prisons today will be extremely concerned by this report. For it represents an indictment of those with responsibility for the custody and care of the prisoners in their charge which reaches to the highest levels in the Prison Service, and their failure properly to discharge those responsibilities. The chief inspector has quite a lot to commend in Wandsworth, but overall he states that it is,
	"far behind the vast majority of other prisons in civilising the treatment of and conditions for prisoners".
	As a result, a situation has been allowed to develop in Wandsworth in which life has clearly become unacceptably difficult not only for the prisoners held there but also for many of the prison staff and others associated with the prison. That is intolerable for all concerned--and this includes us, my Lords, for we all have a duty of care for how our prisons are run.
	The report is particularly concerned about the alarming culture of the prison--"the Wandsworth Way"--which underpins many of the other difficulties, a point referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The levels of overcrowding, which mirror the catastrophic rise in the prison population generally, coupled with budget cuts have compounded the problems. It makes most unhappy reading. However, I will concentrate on three particular aspects of the report.
	I had a feeling of deja vu about some of the report's contents. The description of the way visits are handled, the attitudes to visitors--described as "despicable" by some, but not all staff--and the mismanagement of arrangements such as the booking system described in Wandsworth today reminded me of the time when I was involved in setting up the first visitors centre at Pentonville back in 1970. Then too visitors, mostly wives and children, were often treated as if they also were criminals when in reality they were more often victims. Then too it could take an hour or more to get into the visits room--plus ca change. When we started the centre it was a controversial idea to provide a service to these families, but it is a measure of progress that visitors centres are now part of the landscape. I am delighted that Wandsworth too has a visitors centre, which was highly praised in the chief inspector's report, so that visitors do have that degree of support. But, how people are treated by prison staff is also crucially important.
	There is a clear understanding today that regular, positive contact between a prisoner and his family and friends is absolutely essential if prisons are to be manageable institutions. Thus, visits form a key part of the life of any prison. They maintain vital family links and contacts with the outside world, and are of huge importance to all prisoners. How their visitors are treated and how their visits go can make all the difference to the prisoners concerned, which in turn will impact on the atmosphere in a prison. Visits are never easy, but if properly and sensitively managed they result in prisoners being more relaxed and happier and ultimately that means a happier prison. This is well understood in most prisons, and indeed in Scotland we have seen the introduction of the families contact development officer who spends his time in the visits area actively fostering good and positive relationships between visitors and the uniformed staff. I hope very much that the Minister will give serious consideration to developing this model in England. I should also like to ask what priority is given to spending on visitors facilities and centres when capital funding is being allocated.
	The segregation unit also has a familiar ring about it, where the most disruptive, weakest or unpopular--notably sex offenders--are held and this is where the report is most critical. It reminds me of the infamous B Hall in Peterhead prison back in the mid-1980s when men were held in isolation, sometimes for months, by staff who wore riot gear at all times. Like Wandsworth today, it enjoyed a reputation as a hard prison, and that was its hardest feature. I am glad to say that B Hall is no more, and those men were satisfactorily dispersed. But the report refers to the,
	"inhuman and reprehensible way that prisoners were treated"
	in Wandsworth's segregation unit. That is unacceptable.
	Just as the gate lodge and visits area of a prison is a barometer of the ethos of a prison in the way it presents itself to the outside world and deals with its visitors, so segregation units are a barometer of basic levels of care. If any level of abuse is occurring, this is where it is likely to be found. That is because of the very difficult nature of the prisoners held in these units, the fact that they are out of the mainstream of prison life and that they tend to be managed by the same staff team. While this can be helpful where there is good practice, if there is not, then they can go badly wrong. These units absolutely require regular supervision and it is imperative that the Government put strategies in place to deal with this very difficult and sensitive area. I ask the Minister what practical plans there are to deal with this problem.
	The problems of management and supervision of these units is a symptom of a larger problem for the most senior management levels in the service, which is the need to give an appropriate, effective and clear lead in terms of strategies, goals and vision. It is all too easy to pin the blame on the staff on the ground, or the POA and the "sizeable minority" of staff who embody and perpetuate the tough, negative, aggressive and frightening culture that pervades the prison. That certainly and shockingly exists, and the high proportion of prisoners who feel unsafe or claim that they have been assaulted by staff--even if exaggerated--is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. But a prison which has had periods without its new governor actually on the job in the prison for months at a time, but seconded elsewhere, cannot begin to have its problems addressed. That too was unacceptable.
	There are members of staff at Wandsworth who try their best to be constructive and do their job effectively. Indeed, the chief inspector paid tribute to them and identified various areas of very good practice. Having worked to set up and then run the Butler Trust back in 1985, which gives annual awards for outstanding work by staff throughout the prison services of the UK, I believe in the fundamental importance of maintaining standards and morale by recognising and promoting good practice by prison staff and disseminating it throughout the system. But to take that work forward, it must be in the context of clear and firm leadership from the top.
	I welcome Jack Straw's initiative in inviting the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to look into the problems of failing prisons and how to identify them so that the Wandsworth abuses never recur. But I understand that he is being asked to report by the beginning of May and also has other commitments. So I should like to ask the Minister how he can possibly have time to make a meaningful report under those circumstances.
	There is no quick or simple solution to the problems of Wandsworth. But simply on the indicators of those areas I have highlighted, it is not a healthy prison. I call on the Government to take urgent action to remedy this most shocking and worrying state of affairs.

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, we have already heard some of the concerns expressed in the wake of the chief inspector's unannounced visit to Wandsworth last July. I shall not repeat them, save to voice my own concern, as bishop to prisons, at what Sir David Ramsbotham found. Instead, I want to focus on two particular areas.
	In his highly critical comments on the segregation unit at Wandsworth, the chief inspector mentions mentally disordered prisoners. It is well known that our over-burdened Prison Service has to deal with an unacceptably high level of mentally ill prisoners. As I have said previously in this House, a normal prison is no place to handle and house such people. It is totally unreasonable to expect ordinary prison officers to deal effectively with such inmates. That does not excuse filthy conditions or idleness, but it does help to illustrate the considerable pressure under which all prison staff are expected to work these days. I beg the Government, and the Minister in particular, to give urgent consideration to these matters.
	Sir David says that what his team observed in the segregation unit confirmed his suspicions that the priorities of management are directed elsewhere than to the correct treatment and conditions of prisoners. Our prisons are bursting at the seams, and the Prison Service is obliged by government to give a high priority to budgets and key performance indicators. But we need also to recognise the importance of the quality of treatment and the conditions of prisoners. As Martin Narey, the director-general of the Prison Service told us in General Synod last November, for him, prisoners are ultimately about morality. In our anxieties about efficiency and costs, we need to remember that.
	Secondly, I want to express concern about the chaplaincy at Wandsworth. Sir David refers to concerns about the facilities for worship for prisoners of all faiths and denominations in the vulnerable prisoner unit. I am told that the prison's Anglican chapel is now used during the week by a charity running experiential social drama and teaching programmes about relationships. While one applauds the provision of such programmes, it means that during the week the chapel cannot be used for a service, groups, or for individual inmates with a chaplain to pray on the day of a funeral of a close friend or relative that the prisoner may not attend. Chaplains have to make arrangements to re-order the chapel on Saturday for Sunday worship. I can recognise the pressure on space in Wandsworth, but the fact that the mosque can only be reached through the chapel makes respect for sacred space for all traditions of faith difficult and causes concern.
	More important is the entitlement of prisoners to practise their religion in Wandsworth. Men whose names are properly listed to attend chapel may not be unlocked, and so their name is not on the list of attendees and they lose a place. Each week, so I am told, numbers of prisoners are not able to attend because there is a restriction on numbers in the chapel, and staffing difficulties do not allow the provision of additional services. There is an attitude that the prisoner must apply and that worship is a kind of recreation, not a right. Clearly, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	Wandsworth is a large local remand prison and its main function is to serve the courts by holding prisoners on remand and directly after sentence. The prison has to take what it is sent. That means that, in the main, the population is on the move continually. I know that staff often feel that Wandsworth "gets the dregs", and they cite examples of difficult prisoners being posted on to Wandsworth. All that gives some insight into the low morale of many officers. It does not encourage them to think creatively or to seek to depart from the "Wandsworth way" of doing things. It is a demoralising experience simply to be dealing with that turnover of difficult and demanding inmates. As the chief inspector rightly points out, Wandsworth shares many problems with other local prisons which are not of its own making.
	It is hard, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, to change a culture in a prison. However, the chief inspector told me only this week that, since the publication of his report, a new and impressive governor has been appointed to lead Wandsworth out of its difficulties. That, combined with a very good action plan by the area manager--a plan based on the inspectorate's concept of the healthy prison--should go a long way to turning Wandsworth round. All of us devoutly hope that that may be so.

Lord Judd: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Longford for once again giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am one of those who believe that we shall be assessed by historians on the conditions of our prisons. It is said that prison conditions say a great deal about the underlying values of the society in which we live.
	At the outset, I should like to underline that, in his report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons goes out of his way to say that there are good people working in the Prison Service in Wandsworth, people who are endeavouring to reach the highest standards and who deserve encouragement as well as inspired and firm leadership.
	If we are looking at the seriousness of the report, it is important to place it in historical perspective. The task with which the Government, and those responsible to the Government, are confronted goes back a long way. It is more than 10 years since the Chief Inspector, Judge Tumim, in an inspection report, criticised the culture of staff neglecting prisoners and, subsequently, discipline staff walked out of the prison, blaming problems on "difficult prisoners" and police officers were drafted in to run the establishment.
	In 1991, the Council of Europe condemned conditions at Wandsworth as "inhuman and degrading". In 1992, Wandsworth Community Health Council severely criticised the standard of healthcare in the prison, three years after the Chief Inspector of Prisons had made similar criticisms. In 1993, an inspection report described life for prisoners as "monotonous and tedious", with "completely inadequate" employment opportunities. Many prisoners were receiving less than one shower a week, and there was no inmate association. In 1997, a Board of Visitors' report criticised education and healthcare provision, and indeed the local Prison Officers' Association then demanded the removal of passages in the report that were critical of staff.
	In 1999 the Wandsworth Board of Visitors criticised overcrowding, budget cuts, low staffing levels, lack of middle management and the fact that, on more than one occasion, the prison had been left without a governor for several months. That is a sad history and a very difficult situation for the present team to turn round. I hope that the message which goes out from tonight's debate is not negative but one that encourages and supports them to try to make this prison a model rather than one which continues in the "Wandsworth way".
	Having said that, perhaps the Minister in his reply can deal with several specific points, some of which have already been mentioned, and reassure us. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is a tragedy--I use that word advisedly--that in so many of our prisons people should not be there at all because basically they are mentally ill. It would be good to hear reassuring comments from the Minister this evening that the Government have that issue in hand and are determined to do something about it. At another level, I was very concerned to read that there were two immigration detainees--it was a small number--in this prison. Why on earth were they in this awful place? I should like to have a specific assurance from the Minister that never again will an immigration detainee find himself in Wandsworth.
	There are also disturbing observations in the report that staff did not know how many foreign nationals were in the prison and there were communication difficulties because of language. I should like a reassurance from the Minister that something specific is being done about that. The chief inspector also talked about racism. I suspect that in this context he was not talking primarily about the staff. This is a pernicious problem which must be tackled head on. It would also be of assistance to have a reassurance from the Minister on that matter.
	I was concerned to hear that last year there were 305 instances of self-harm in Wandsworth. What is being done about that? I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that we must have evidence from the Minister that the issues surrounding the segregation unit are being tackled and that arrangements for visitors are being made, or should be. Of all that I have learnt about rehabilitation, relationships with families are of crucial importance.
	Perhaps the most important issue of all is that it is impossible to read the report without drawing the conclusion that here we have too big and impersonal a prison with all its problems of overcrowding and so on. If there is a future strategy for our prisons it will be of assistance to know that we shall not continue to run establishments of this size which in many ways make it virtually impossible to manage them. I recognise that this situation has been inherited by those with current responsibility, and we want to support them in finding a way forward. However, firm leadership is necessary and that must start with the Government. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to provide specific reassurances on the points that I have raised.
	There is one basic point on which I should like to hear the thinking of the Minister. Like others, I have great respect for him and his colleagues in all that they seek to do. I believe that a government that seek to be judged by the toughness and effectiveness of their penal policy must have the challenge of rehabilitation at the top of their priorities. It must be understood that wrongdoing is not acceptable and will be punished, but the challenge is to turn the wrongdoers into decent, positive citizens.
	The question is: how does one bring them back into mainstream life so that they make a constructive contribution? The desperately sad fact to emerge from the report is that there is evidence that people are being turned into hardened criminals with little chance of playing a positive part in society and taking an altogether different approach to life on their release. It is not only a matter of what happens in prison but of what arrangements are made to ensure that people are not just dumped back into society. They must be taken by the hand and led back into society so that they can reconstruct their lives. That approach must be based on the underlying culture and expectations of the Prison Service. We have heard about leadership. However, I should like to hear the Minister tell the House specifically what is being done to re-express the culture of the Prison Service so that the challenge of rehabilitation is seen as the principal vocational task of all those who on our behalf look after people in our prisons, which is no easy task.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, Holloway, Feltham, Wormwood Scrubs and now Wandsworth have been the subject of scarifying reports which in the old days would have been enough to see the departure of the Home Secretary. Since the previous Home Secretary managed to hive off the responsibility to the director-general, nowadays almost anything can happen in the Prison Service without disturbing the equilibrium of Queen Anne's Gate. Every time the chief inspector comes out with a hard-hitting report it is greeted with an air of injured surprise in the eyes of Queen Anne's Gate. In the last case the Minister, commenting on the report at the Prison Service annual conference at Harrogate, said:
	"We cannot continue to experience the sort of failures that have occurred in the Scrubs and Wandsworth ... in which all those agencies and systems that you would expect to alert the Board [to] problems seem not to have done so".
	If there is an absence of an effective early warning system which causes management and the Minister to be caught on the hop in trying to explain to the media why they are unaware of what goes on in their prisons it is about time they found one. It is probable that one of the agencies that the Minister had in mind was the board of visitors. The board has a duty under Rule 77 to,
	"direct the attention of the governor to any matter which calls for his attention, and shall report to the Secretary of State any matter which [it considers] it expedient to report".
	It also has the quite separate duty to,
	"inform the Secretary of State immediately of any abuse which comes to [its] knowledge".
	Why does that system not provide an adequate early warning of trouble at Wandsworth or anywhere else?
	First and foremost, I suggest that the reports are not read properly by anybody except the chief inspector, who picks up criticisms and expresses them in his own inimitable style. I shall demonstrate that in the case of Wandsworth. Secondly, the reporting duties of boards of visitors are not clearly defined. For some years I have tried to persuade Ministers that the boards should be required to produce annual reports and make them available to the media and the public. In the last year for which we have figures, 132 boards submitted annual reports to the Minister and only 94 of them were published. Will the Minister now place a duty on boards of visitors to publish annual reports, and will he ask them to report specifically on issues which are the main causes of problems?
	Apart from routinely reporting to the Secretary of State any matter which they think it expedient to report, boards of visitors have the duty to inform the Minister "immediately" of any abuse which comes to their knowledge. I suggested to the previous Minister that the wording of this provision needed to be clarified because of the vagueness of the term "abuse" and the necessity to investigate whatever allegation might have been made, rather than bombarding the Secretary of State with every allegation which might turn out to be malicious or ill-founded.
	In September 1998 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, agreed that there might be a need to look at the wording of that rule. He thought that in the mean time it would be helpful if the national director issued guidance to boards of visitors on the point. But I noticed that the new rules published last year remain unchanged. I asked why the opportunity had not then been taken to make the drafting alterations. The noble Lord who is to respond this evening replied that only a consolidation exercise had been undertaken, plus a few obvious deletions such as the removal of provisions dealing with prisoners sentenced to death. However, the noble Lord undertook to ask the secretariat of the board of visitors to issue guidance to boards on how to interpret that rule until such time as it may be amended. Can the Minister say anything further on that? What are the circumstances in which boards would be required to communicate their knowledge of abuses occurring in their prison directly to the Secretary of State?
	There are plenty of warnings in the 1997 and 1998 reports of the Wandsworth board of visitors. The Minister was not being entirely fair to the board when he claimed that all the responsible agencies had remained silent. They dealt with a number of issues raised later in perhaps rather stronger language by Sir David. At the beginning of the report, it commented adversely on the fact, as noted by my noble friend Lady Linklater, that the previous governing governor, Graham Clark, retired in June 1998 but his successor arrived four months later in October. Even then he was apparently taken out to act as area manager leaving the prison without a governing governor for six months. The board described that as unfortunate and said that the gap led to "a lack of direction". So no one can say that he was not told.
	Sir David now says that he has criticised Prison Service senior management again and again for allowing that to happen, as one of the reasons for failing the prison. We do not need the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to tell us that. It is already in the report.
	The board drew attention again to the problems created by the presence of a large foreign population in the prison--it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd--with no resources to match. On average in that year there were 120 prisoners, or about 10 per cent of the population in the prison. However, at the time of the chief inspector's visit, the number had doubled to 250. Their needs were largely being ignored. The staff did not know how many foreigners there were on their wings, their nationality, or the languages they spoke. To deal humanely with those prisoners, one would have to provide interpreters, and meet the prisoners' dietary and religious needs. They might need reading material in their own language. They might need teaching by qualified ESL teachers. It is not satisfactory to dump the job of assessing those needs on the shoulders of one part-time race relations officer, however competent he may be.
	To put that situation right would cost money. Yet governors have the same amount to spend per head on all prisoners irrespective of their nationality. I suggest to the Minister that we need a supplement, an extra payment, to governors to cover the needs I have mentioned where there is a large number of foreign nationals in the prison.
	Last November I sent the Minister an analysis of foreign nationals in our prisons in March 1996 and September 1999. It indicated that the number of foreigners in our prisons is increasing even faster than British nationals. Bearing in mind the cost of keeping these prisoners in custody, I asked whether we could undertake a study to determine the reasons for the increase and to consider the possibility that the courts make greater use of suspended sentences with a recommendation for deportation; and whether the arrangements for repatriation of sentenced persons are working properly and expeditiously. Whether or not the Government agree to my suggested terms of reference, we should not turn a blind eye to a phenomenon which has important implications for both the criminal justice and the penal systems.
	Finally, one way to improve the early warning of failing prisons would be to upgrade the standards of professionalism and competence of the boards of visitors. The training of board members is not well designed. The courses are not tailored to meet the needs of different kinds of establishment. They have no module on alleged abuse and what to do about it. They have no training on the Human Rights Act. The subject matter is geared to trained volunteers relying on their own experience. Some boards would like to see IIP accreditation, but that would require support from the Minister and the directorate.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating a debate on the Wandsworth prison report. Wandsworth is one of four significant prisons in my diocese and my colleagues and I share an active interest in the life and health of people there. I was therefore very concerned about the criticisms of Wandsworth made in the chief inspector's report.
	As we have heard, Wandsworth prison, both within the service and outside, has the reputation of being a hard place able to handle prisoners who have proved difficult to handle elsewhere. They were sent to Wandsworth and Wandsworth handled them without too many questions being asked. That was the "Wandsworth way".
	The chief inspector's report questions whether the remnant of the Wandsworth way has any place in a modern penal system. In particular, the report makes criticisms of the regime in the segregation unit where some of what the chief inspector calls "the worst and the weakest prisoners" were wont to show up. He says:
	"Never have I had to write about anything so inhuman and reprehensible as the way that prisoners, some of them seeking protection and some of them mentally disordered, were treated in the filthy and untidy segregation unit".
	The chief inspector adds that those visiting the unit, including chaplains and doctors, should ask themselves why they did not do enough to stop what was going on.
	I am in no position to respond to the accusation concerning Wandsworth. But I can tell a story from another prison in a different part of the country which might indicate why criticisms are sometimes muted. The story concerns a young prison chaplain who made several complaints about the harshness of a regime in a wing where vulnerable prisoners were being held. An accusation of sexual misbehaviour by the chaplain was then made and he was suspended. The police were eventually informed and within a short time came to the conclusion that the accusation had been concocted. Nevertheless, it took several months before the chaplain's suspension was lifted and he was then moved to another prison.
	I was closely involved in the case and have no doubt that the whole episode was engineered in order to move someone who was perceived to be a troublesome member of staff. Will that chaplain complain again about anything he sees which disturbs him? I doubt it. Will he keep his head down and just get on with his job without complaint? Very probably.
	The report is quite correct. In the absence of firm management, inexperienced staff become resigned to decisions being taken by the dominant officer of the day on the wing. And woe betide the member of staff or prisoner who steps out of line.
	The report makes many recommendations, and the noble Earl rightly wishes to know how these issues are being addressed. A diocesan bishop is in a privileged position. He can turn up at the gatehouse of any prison in his diocese unannounced and has the right of admission. It is a right rarely used. We usually make an appointment like most civilised folk. However, last night, in order to address the noble Earl's Question I thought it right to show up unannounced at the gate of Wandsworth prison at six o'clock and ask to be taken to the segregation unit. To be honest, I was expecting to be depressed by what I found. On the contrary, I was much encouraged. The unit has been completely redecorated, a new kitchen has been installed, and new showers are in the process of being fitted. While not spotless, the floors and the washbasins are no dirtier than those in the average student accommodation.

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate. No doubt he will tell us: it has been given a new name.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, indeed it has been given a new name. Nevertheless, it is the same wing. Since the report was published, new staff have been assigned to the unit. They were obviously proud of the changes which have been made. I emphasise that they were not expecting my visit.
	I visited five of the prisoners in the unit, whom I chose at random, and, unlike the members of the inquiry team, I saw each of them alone in their cells without a prison officer being present. They ranged from one prisoner who had been put on the wing that day to those who had been there six months because they were reluctant to return to the landings. Each one told me that they felt safer in the segregation unit than on the landings. This would suggest that there is now no brutality in the segregation unit but leaves open the question of whether or not there is bullying or a harsh regime on the landings.
	There were no complaints about the frequency of showers, but it is quite obvious that the granting of exercise is still a privilege not a right, and it is a privilege that the prisoners are sure will not be granted if they make a nuisance of themselves. This was the only evidence of any remnant of the Wandsworth way that I discerned in the segregation unit.
	Judging from this unannounced visit, changes are in hand. I should caution against merely going through the report's recommendations and ticking off the changes. This "tick box" mentality underestimates the task that is necessary to tackle the deeper issues of exercising authority in a tough gaol in a civilised and civilising way.
	Prison officers will only pay more than lip service to change if they are confident that they are not losing control of their environment. There is the feeling among many long-serving prison officers that demanding prisoners are best controlled by locking them in their cells for long periods of time. The best penal practice to which the report points knows that this is not so. Assaults upon prison officers and other prisoners are more of a problem when the pent up anger, developed through long periods of confinement, boils over when the door is ultimately opened. That is when assaults take place. The best regime is created where relatively small numbers of prison officers feel confident in supervising a moderate number of prisoners in association or work. This can be done, and is being done in some of the better regimes. To develop such a regime at Wandsworth prison will take time. It will take firm management by the new governor. It will take clear action against unacceptable behaviour on behalf of prison officers or prisoners and it will take constant monitoring.
	I did not expect to be at all impressed during my visit last night. But, to my surprise, I was. I hope that Sir David, when he pays a return visit to Wandsworth, will also see signs of clear progress. I certainly intend to pay unannounced visits from time to time because I believe that this type of public accountability is the best way of encouraging Wandsworth forward. Perhaps we will see developed another kind of Wandsworth way, the way of moving an elderly local prison forward in the most enlightened fashion. It will take time, but it is not impossible. I believe that a good start has been made.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am privileged to follow the right reverend Prelate because he gives that for which we all look; that is, hope and salvation arising out of the report.
	The debate tonight has been called for by my friend Lord Longford, who is well known for his interest in penal matters. We congratulate him.
	I share the concern expressed by many. In my notes I call the report a disturbing report. It did disturb me. I have visited Wandsworth prison more than once in the past. It is right that parliamentary time should be given to debating the report. One of the values of a debate such as this is that all sides of the argument can be put, not only that in the inspector's report, but comments from outside parties on the inspector's report. It was put to me that the report rested very much on feelings: it was felt this and it was felt that. I thought of Charles Aznavour who had a hit song called "Feelings". We ought to base ourselves on something more substantial than feelings.
	Many strictures in the report are well founded, and I do not dispute them. Earlier this evening I met with members of the Prison Officers' Association and prison officers from Wandsworth. They recognise that there is a major job to be done, and that the first issue to be tackled is that of leadership. For six months before the report visit, the governor was going about his proper business; he was then seconded as area manager, and did not have hands-on control. That of itself would be a major factor in a general malaise that might have existed in the prison.
	We now have the heartening news of a new governor who has impressed those he has met. That is a good sign because the prison officers to whom I spoke told me that, in a difficult situation, they are working very closely and very well with the new governor on addressing the problems with which they can themselves deal.
	There are a number of ameliorating and extenuating factors that ought to receive attention: for example, race relations. Race relations was singled out as a stricture: the presence of and the lack of attention to race relations. I am told that there is now a positive policy and a training package in which the Prison Officers' Association has played a full part. At the annual meeting of the POA this year--which I have attended in the past and addressed many times--the major discussion or debate will be to do with race relations and equal opportunities. The POA does not run away from criticisms either of itself or its members. The record should show that it recognises the problem and it is trying to deal with it.
	I was given a note, which I should like to mention in the debate, about the fine work put in by prison officers. Safe Ground is a charity that provides positive training and skills to inmates regarding parental skills. This training is based on drama and film. Another charity is Fine Cell Work. A prison officer has received an award from the governor for producing this work. Then one looks at the laundry workshop that is part of the estate. The prison industry's award went to the laundry at Wandsworth for the best workshop in the Prison Service for 1999-2000. The CoSLA award was presented for the second year running to the prison magazine that was produced by the staff. The gymnasium at Wandsworth is used not only by the inmates; local blind children are brought into the prison and use the gymnasium under the guidance of prison officers.
	Drugs now, as in the past, play a major part. I am told that positive results in random tests are one-third of the national average and have been for the past three years. People who know the culture of drugs in our society, let alone in the prisons, realise that that must be a tremendous achievement. It is only done by positive work, understanding and determination by the prison officers.
	Tonight, we have a major opportunity to act. Even though the report and the situation are bleak, one ought to make a number of comments. For instance, the chief inspector said:
	"Unfortunately, the good work of many of the staff in HMP Wandsworth is being overshadowed by a pervasive culture of fear ... Prison Service management, the Governor and his staff, must all share some blame, as it was quite obvious to the inspection team from the outset that Wandsworth was far behind the vast majority of other prisons in civilising the treatment of and conditions for prisoners".
	That is not down to the prison officers or the POA but to a whole range of people. Those accused in part of some dereliction ought not to be offended.
	The chief inspector also said:
	"The time to dispense with 'The Wandsworth Way' is long overdue. The silver lining to this particularly dark cloud is that I believe the majority of staff have the skills and capabilities to help move the prison out of its current malaise".
	Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, who has my utmost respect, said:
	"I am afraid that the vast majority of the staff at Wandsworth and more significantly those who know the prison well, including the Board of Visitors and outside groups who work with the prison, will not recognise much of this report. The drug strategy, excellent offending behaviour courses, healthcare and the imaginative use of the voluntary sector in, for example, parenting courses for fathers are praised by all who see them".
	The Minister, Mr Paul Boateng, said:
	"There is good practice at Wandsworth. Good staff must not see their work undermined by bad attitudes. The drugs strategy, healthcare and the successful offending behaviour courses ... are to be admired".
	Finally, Mark Healey, Chairman of the Prison Officers' Association said that it was unfair to criticise prison officers for conditions which stemmed from staff and funding cutbacks.The enormous overcrowding and tight budgets have a lot to do with the situation. Mark told me:
	"Our members are assaulted every day of the year. Staffing levels are paramount for the POA and it is no good asking for an enhanced regime if the resources are not there".
	I was told that the number of assaults on prison officers and inmates doubled in the three months surrounding Christmas. There is a feeling that the prisoners think they are winning. The morale of the staff is crucial and that is why I welcome the positive remarks which are attributed to the new governor.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that this can be seen as an opportunity not only for the Minister but also for the Director General, the POA and everyone concerned. Unless it is recognised that one of the most valuable assets in the penal estate is the training and dedication of the prison officers, we shall lose out. Society sends to prison people convicted of a crime, many of whom are illiterate, inadequate, vicious and violent. It locks the doors and says to the prison officers, "Look after them on our behalf". What prison officers need is encouragement and support, and I hope that the Minister can provide that tonight.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing the debate. No one can be surprised that the chief inspector's report on Wandsworth has generated so much concern.
	When a person is sentenced to custody, the state takes over the responsibility for his welfare. We therefore expect the highest standards of prison institutions in the way they treat inmates. The courts rightly pass the sentence and no one has the right to develop a culture which further penalises inmates.
	Immediately before the debate we approved an order relating to the census. It takes place every 10 years and gives a measurement of the progress we are making in our social policies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I decided to look back 10 years to when Judge Tumim was the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I shall not go into detail, but I picked up headlines such as that in October 1989,
	"Shake-up called for in prison regime".
	That was about Wandsworth. Also,
	"Prison lacking a reforming regime",
	and,
	"Jail conditions at Wandsworth 'lack humanity'".
	That was the starting point in examining Sir David Ramsbotham's report. But what Judge Tumim said 10 years ago was very worrying. He went on to say,
	"staff treated inmates with disdain and operated a 'thoroughly institutionalising regime'".
	He also spoke of the culture of the prison officers. I simply reiterate that to a great extent the inference behind that report was that it was the prison officers who determined how the prison was to be run.
	At the time, my noble friend the Chief Whip for our Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the conclusions of Judge Tumim's report were utterly disturbing and the prison was itself decaying. Ten years ago, HMI said that the prison failed to meet even,
	"basic standards of humanity and decency".
	It called for a phased but fundamental shake-up of a regime which was primitive and "thoroughly institutionalising".
	Perhaps I may return to 1999. When the chief inspector's report on Wandsworth was published on 18th December 1999, it was the third highly critical report to come from the inspectorate, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Avebury. It followed poor reports on Feltham in March and Wormwood Scrubs in June. The latest report still makes disturbing reading, but I should like to pick out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham, some important improvements. We should not back away from the good points and I do not wish to be accused of only picking out the bad elements.
	The report of the chief inspector was not uniformly critical of Wandsworth. It acknowledged that the accommodation had become cleaner and more modern since the previous inspection; that thoroughcare practice was more advanced than at many training prisons; and that specialist agencies were running positive drug treatment programmes, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords. Furthermore, all departments included enthusiastic and dedicated staff who were trying hard to overcome Wandsworth's problems. Let us not forget that we are not talking about all the staff; we are simply pointing out that some staff give a bad name to all those who do good work.
	I am chair of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders--NACRO. I am particularly pleased that some 250 staff at Wandsworth have undertaken race relations training devised by NACRO, which aims to cover all the staff over a three-year period. I have a vested interest in this because I believe that a proper race relations strategy forms an important part of prison policy.
	I wish to concentrate on five problems identified by the chief inspector and mentioned in many other contributions to the debate tonight. The first problem is that we constantly return to the culture at Wandsworth. It is a culture that has been described as "The Wandsworth way" and is summed up in Sir David's report as follows:
	"HMP Wandsworth has always had, and some staff have prided themselves upon the reputation of being a 'hard' prison ... Over the years, prisoners have been encouraged to think that they have been sent there as a punishment, with which many hardened ones have been happy to collude".
	The result is that many prisoners consider the best way to survive is to keep your head down and be as anonymous as possible, as was rightly pointed out in an example given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
	Other prisoners respond by constantly behaving in a hard manner to show that they are not intimidated. Some ex-prisoners who have had experience of more constructive regimes in other prisons--for example, at Latchmere House resettlement prison--have said that they could tell which prisoners had been transferred from Wandsworth because they showed a hard, "macho" attitude and found it much more difficult to engage positively with opportunities for rehabilitation and to make constructive relationships with staff. This means that the traditional "Wandsworth way" is the opposite of the way in which we should be acting if we want to divert prisoners from reoffending.
	The second issue I wish to raise is the high proportion of prisoners at Wandsworth--14 per cent--who claimed in questionnaires returned to the inspectorate to have been assaulted by a member of the staff. While prisoners can of course exaggerate such claims, they were more widespread than the inspectorate found in other prisons. Some ex-prisoners from Wandsworth spoke of verbal and physical aggression by a minority of staff.
	Are we powerless to identify culprits among the prison staff? Assault and aggression are unacceptable. Do we not have the technology to identify such officers? The police have successfully introduced ways to apprehend corrupt officers. Is there a lesson to be learnt from the police service in this area?
	The most effective way of minimising the risk of misbehaviour is partly by the effective supervision of staff and partly by promoting a strong ethos of rehabilitation. However, at the time of the inspection, the population of the prison had been increased by 50 per cent from 921 to 1,294 but simultaneously was required to make cuts in its budget. How does one operate when the number of prisoners is doubled but there is no more money to look after them effectively?
	Another problem that crops up time and again in reports by the chief inspector is the length of time which often elapses before a governor who leaves is replaced. That has been pointed out by a number of Ministers. Could we not devise a practice whereby we have the best possible people for the worst possible prison? Those people should not be taken away from that situation until the situation has been turned around.
	Finally, I draw attention to the particular problems faced by the large number of foreign national prisoners at Wandsworth--some 250 at the time of the inspection--whose special needs were largely ignored. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us of a firm and effective way to tackle those problems. Martin Narey, the Prison Service director, and Sir David Ramsbotham have done much to improve prison conditions. I have known them for years and I have every confidence in their ability to turn the prison around. In addition, we must never forget the work of the board of visitors, the chaplaincy and others who continuously go into prisons and carry out very useful work.
	At the end of the day, our patience will be exhausted. If one has a toothache, there are ways of curing it. If the time comes when nothing works, that tooth must be extracted. Wandsworth will be no exception if its public profile continues to build up over a period of time, condemning it as being inhuman.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a most serious report and this has been a most serious debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has done us all a service by securing the debate this evening. The chief inspector makes important criticisms of Wandsworth prison and, in the preface to the report in particular, he also draws some wider conclusions from this particular case.
	I have not been to Wandsworth prison. Therefore, I shall not follow the comments that have been made on the details of the report. However, clearly, both the detailed recommendations and the overall case made against the so-called "culture" of the prison deserve the closest scrutiny. From what I have heard about the prison from inquiries that I made before the debate, I gather that while very good work is being done there--attention was drawn to that a little earlier and it is mentioned by the chief inspector in the report--the problem of the culture is very real. It can be summarised as relating to the way that some of the officers treat the prisoners.
	I should add at once that, when I was in another place, there were three prisons, or, to be more accurate, three penal establishments in my constituency and, for a while, a Prison Service training establishment as well, which I came to know well over more than 20 years. I have the highest respect for prison officers and governors and for the very difficult work that they carry out on behalf of us all. Although it is not directly relevant, I also came to have very high respect for the Northern Ireland Prison Service when I had responsibility for it for a couple of years. During that time, I came to know some very hard prisons indeed.
	I return to Wandsworth. Throughout his report, the chief inspector makes the point that the culture of the prison does not respect prisoners sufficiently. However, both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his opening speech and, particularly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave us reason to hope that changes were in progress. I believe that the speech of the right reverend Prelate was very important.
	The chief inspector rightly says that Prison Service standards constantly emphasise that the service should respect the human dignity of prisoners. However, he also believes that the proper measures are not being used to judge the working of prisons in this respect. In talking about the information given to top management, he complains that it is,
	"not about the quality of outcomes for prisoners but about budgets, Key Performance Indicators and measurements of quantity of laid down processes".
	I do not doubt that he is right, but quality is notoriously more difficult to measure than quantity. In particular, it is very difficult to measure how much officers respect the human rights of prisoners. There is no objective measure. Respect can sometimes be measured by politeness--the way in which prisoners are addressed, for example. That leaves something to be desired in some cases. But in every prison there are some prisoners who are difficult to be civil to, let alone polite.
	There are also some people who are quite capable of uttering the most polite words while really asserting their power over others. I think immediately of the regimental sergeant-major at Sandhurst explaining to a new officer cadet "You call me 'Sir', sir, and I call you 'Sir', sir, but the difference is--you mean it". I tell that story not in criticism of the sergeant-major, who certainly could not be faulted for lack of politeness on any objective measure, but in illustration of the difficulties of measuring respect.
	In the end, I do not think the chief inspector is right to suggest, as he does rather indirectly, that performance indicators can be devised to measure in full the respect for the human rights of prisoners, although they might make a contribution. Governors and senior prison staff management should, of course, concern themselves about it, even if it cannot be measured, and they should do all they can to ensure that a proper culture exists in every prison. But not everything that is important can be easily measured and sent to head office on a form.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the fact that the report was based on feelings. That is true, but the culture of a prison can be felt when visiting, although not so easily on a formal, high-level visit. One example is a ministerial visit, and until this evening I had thought an episcopal visit was another. However, it is something that, for example, the board of visitors should be responsive to, as it visits the prison all the time and sees it in its everyday guise and not on its best behaviour.
	The same is true of chaplains and doctors, mentioned by the chief inspector, and of others who regularly go into a prison, although it is important not to damage their proper role by expecting them to be over-concerned with reporting to the management on conditions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave us an important cautionary tale in that respect, too.
	I regard what the chief inspector says about governors and senior staff of the Prison Service listening to boards of visitors and other sources of information on the culture of prisons as most important and deserving emphasis. But it is also most important to ensure that the staff at all levels can talk to management if they feel that things are not right. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of the comments on the report of officers from Wandsworth. I hope that they have had a full opportunity to see the report and to comment on it, not only through the Prison Officers' Association, but directly.
	It is also very important to ensure that prisoners' complaints are properly considered and dealt with, as is mentioned in the report.
	Above all, the Prison Service is right to be trying to refine its measures of outcomes. It would be very useful to see the statistics of reoffending by prisoners from various prisons. If the most effective regimes and programmes are to be built on, we need to know which they are. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that rehabilitation is one of the most important aims of prisons. But, of course, such statistics would suffer from the same difficulties as school league tables. The nature and habits of those who are sent to a particular prison are reflected in the outcomes. But the real difficulty is that prisoners who serve a sentence of any length do so in different prisons. The prison from which they are discharged would presumably get the credit or blame for their reoffending, or lack of it, and may not necessarily have been the most important influence.
	But as the chief inspector indicates, the Prison Service is right to try to improve its information about the quality of treatment and the conditions of the prisoners and to improve comparisons between the outcomes of the different prisons.
	This has been an extremely useful debate. Like the report, it has been mainly about one single prison but, in reality, there are messages which affect the Prison Service as a whole much more widely. We are all grateful to the noble Earl both for initiating the debate and also for starting it off on a clear note of hope which has been echoed throughout the debate. We await with interest the Minister's response.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Longford for allowing us to discuss this very critical report from Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. My noble friend Lord Graham put his finger on it when he said that this is an opportunity and I believe that that opportunity must be grasped. It is a very important moment in the development of the Prison Service.
	My noble friend Lord Longford has prepared for this debate with his customary care and courtesy, speaking first to the chief inspector, the governor and the area manager and has been very thorough in his preparation.
	Sir David has, with his usual robustness, identified severe failings, particularly in the segregation unit at Wandsworth. I want to report to the House this evening on the service's swift response to the chief inspector's findings and to explain how those improvements will be sustained and monitored year on year.
	My noble friend Lord Longford asked how much responsibility the Government accept. It is important to address that point first. The Government take extremely seriously their responsibilities towards prisons. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has resumed the previously abandoned practice that he and his Ministers should reply in person to Parliamentary Questions from Members of both Houses on prison matters. He made a Statement in the other place in response to the chief inspector's report on Wormwood Scrubs when he reaffirmed his personal responsibility to Parliament. On that occasion he said:
	"There is a broad understanding that I do not undertake to lock up the cells and check the walls every evening, but I am responsible to the House for what happens in the Prison Service".--[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/99; col. 27.]
	That is a very clear recognition of his accountability.
	The chief inspector reports to the Home Secretary and it is right that he, in the first instance, should look to Martin Narey, the director general, for a response to the report's recommendations. I assure the House that he and his senior management team do not shirk responsibility when change is clearly needed.
	My right honourable friend Paul Boateng, the Minister for Prisons and Probation, visited Wandsworth prison just a few days after he was appointed. He has visited since and has first-hand knowledge of both the problems of that prison and the examples of good practice there.
	Wandsworth is one of the largest and most complex prisons in the country, and for many years played a crucial role in taking difficult prisoners from other prisons. With a prisoner population of around 1,300, it was recognised that the regime needed to be controlled and structured. Its success in operating a safe environment for prisoners and staff is reflected in the relatively low number of incidents.
	As Sir David recognised, considerable efforts have been made to develop Wandsworth in the 1990s into a multi-functional prison, with offending behaviour programmes, a model drug strategy and good healthcare provision, forming a basis for further development.
	As my noble friend Lord Graham noted, Sir David in particular praised,
	"those many good staff who want to do a good job ... and who have a genuine affection for, as well as pride in, Wandsworth".
	He made it very clear that that was the case. He stated:
	"There are enthusiastic, skilled and dedicated staff in all departments, who are trying as best they can to overcome the problems with which the prison is beset".
	I add my thanks to the POA for its positive response to the action plan. Sir David concluded that there was a good foundation at Wandsworth on which the Prison Service can build, and evidenced that by the number of good practices he noted. Those points were referred to very well by the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
	Sir David singled out for mention the introduction of "throughcare", which he identified as being more advanced than in training prisons and is a fine example of close working between prison, probation and psychology staff. It includes commendable initiatives, with two accredited offending behaviour programmes with an implementation quality rating of 100 per cent, which is, indeed, impressive.
	In respect of the drug strategy, Sir David commended the fact that every prisoner is tested for substance abuse and that MDT results are presented in a highly sophisticated and effective manner, which he recommended is adopted for use by other prisons. Wandsworth's rate of positive mandatory drug tests is only 7 per cent, which is half the national target. That is an excellent achievement, particularly for a local prison.
	The development of the drug strategy at Wandsworth has continued apace with the provision of 10 additional officers and counsellors to provide CARATs and to increase the availability of voluntary testing. Sir David also cited Wandsworth's healthcare as being an example of good practice, commending the arrangements for nurses, management of healthcare generally and the fact that nursing staff are always on duty when prisoners arrive.
	Wandsworth is continuing to move forward on a wide range of other partnership-based initiatives. Tomorrow, for example, the Government will be signing a protocol on child protection arrangements with the Chief Executive of the NSPCC, the first of its kind across the Prison Service.
	Despite those good points we recognise the seriousness of the criticisms raised by the chief inspector, as does the Prison Service at large. The response to the findings of the chief inspector was swift and focused. Within days of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons leaving the prison, the Prison Service concentrated on immediate improvements to the segregation unit, the focus of some of his sharpest criticism.
	All prisoners in the care and separation unit, which, as the noble Lord noted, has undergone a significant name change, now have access to daily exercise and showers and receive clear written or oral explanations of their rights and expectations. A woman officer and two ethnic minority officers are now working on the unit. Search procedures have been reviewed and the governor in charge visits the unit on a daily basis, which are all important improvements.
	Adjudications are now carried out by the governing governor or his deputy. Special cells are no longer used to deal with suicidal prisoners. Daily inspections are made by the duty manager to ensure that standards of hygiene are scrupulously maintained. The programme of repainting is nearly finished.
	However, as the chief inspector noted, cultural change is vital. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referred to the value of cultural shift and its importance. We believe there are real gains to be made from focusing on staff attitudes and improving them. That has been achieved by much more visible management, clearer standards of care, clear expectations of staff and written material for prisoners.
	Senior management commitment is essential to drive home that new culture of change that we all desire. It is clearly provided in this case. We have found that the most effective means of monitoring improvements is to develop an action plan in response to all of the 147 recommendations of the chief inspector and to monitor it on a regular basis. That has been done for Wandsworth.
	I should like to draw out some of the elements of the detailed plan. Wandsworth is committed to delivering a user-friendly visits booking system--a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater; an effective strategy to meet the needs of foreign national prisoners--a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd; a full commitment to the RESPOND (Race Equality for Staff and Prisoners) programme; more drug-free accommodation; more enhanced thinking skills courses and a revised education programme that will focus on basic skills.
	My noble friends Lord Longford and Lord Graham, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the absence of a governor from September 1998 to February 1999. At the time, the then governor of Wandsworth was the best candidate to act as area manager. It is accepted that this was, with the benefit of hindsight, an unsuitable arrangement. Martin Narey has made it clear that no prison of Wandsworth's size, complexity and need for change will be left without a governor in this way. As a consequence, there was no gap last month between Mick Knight--the governor of Wandsworth until then--moving to head Norwich prison and the appointment and putting into place of Stephen Rimmer in moving from Gartree to take over at Wandsworth. I believe that that must be welcomed.
	The current area manager for London South, Peter Atherton, has responsibility for a number of the largest and most complex prisons in the country. In recognition of that load, an additional area manager, David Waplington, is providing management support. The director general assures me that this means that there will be no lapse in senior support when Peter Atherton moves later this year, on promotion, to lead the high security estate.
	My noble friend Lord Longford rightly asked about the senior management team supporting the governor at the prison. Some staff have changed. The team has been restructured to ensure a proper mix of skills. Moreover, some members of the previous senior management team have been replaced. The necessary commitment to change is there, from the new governor and his senior management team of Wandsworth, straight through the area manager to the director general.
	The governor most recently met the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association last Wednesday. The POA is co-operating with the planned improvements to Wandsworth. The governor meets the POA branch every month. He also has regular meetings with all staff. The governor is quite clear that the POA committee will make a substantial contribution to the positive developments and that it will support the rooting out of any unprofessional behaviour in Wandsworth prison. I pay tribute to the commitment from the POA branch to the action plan.
	Many noble Lords referred to other prisons. Last year, your Lordships debated the Government's response to the chief inspector's report on Feltham remand centre. In that report, the chief inspector expressed his understandable frustration that inadequate action had been taken in response to recommendations made in an earlier report. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn described that report as "bleak" and shared with noble Lords his shock at some of the findings.
	It gives me great pleasure to report that a similar package--a solid senior management commitment, a comprehensive action plan and careful monitoring of its implementation--has produced marked improvements. Indeed, Sir David said that he now found Feltham to be,
	"a very different place from the one we left nine months before".
	He also said:
	"The impressive commitment to change amongst management and staff, from top to bottom, is very noticeable. This confirms what I have said before, namely that there has always been a body of good staff, knowing what they want to and can do, but being denied the opportunity to do so for a variety of reasons".
	I believe that that response demonstrates exactly what can be achieved within the Prison Service. It shows what can be done. We must repeat that elsewhere. Wandsworth is obviously one of those places that is high on our list as regards a repeat of that performance.
	Noble Lords will recognise that I have concentrated very much on the service's response to Sir David's report on Wandsworth. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made reference to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, I am not likely to believe that the service only reacts when its failings are exposed by the chief inspector. Indeed, most importantly, when speaking about Feltham, Sir David said that,
	"this degree of commitment to improving the treatment and conditions of young prisoners in Feltham should not only follow a bad inspection report; it must be built into the structure of the Prison Service as a matter of course".
	Those are very wise words.
	Strong management is the key to success and it must come from within the Prison Service. The director general is leading from the front with his personal commitment to change. The deputy director general has introduced rigorous arrangements for line managing prison establishments. To strengthen this development, the Government asked the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to chair a working group on targeted performance improvement, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
	The service has made some significant advances in recent years, but there is a need to pull together and sharpen the focus of the work to tackle underperformance. The noble Lord will be able to draw on a range of skills and experience from within the service and from the wider world of business and the voluntary sector in order to develop a strategy to build effective local partnerships and establish prisons as resources for their communities. The Government have asked the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to report by 1st May 2000. That is a challenging time target but one which we feel must be met.
	Many noble Lords made many points in the debate. I shall try to address some of those before I conclude. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, raised the issue of family contact development officers. I am pleased to be able to tell her that a family contact development officer is being piloted at Huntercombe Young Offenders Institution in Oxfordshire. That is an important development. I believe that she also made reference to the need to have adequate facilities to receive visitors. At Wandsworth a major refurbishment programme is under way to improve and brighten the access to the visiting area. The noble Baroness also referred to the gate area. We have taken a careful look at that. That point was raised in the report. A dedicated staff information room has now been provided and the POA posters and bulletins have been removed from the immediate gate area.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln raised the issue of a lack of chaplaincy facilities at Wandsworth. All prisoners now have the opportunity to exercise their statutory entitlement to religious provision. The chaplaincy team works well with a wide range of colleagues, including those involved in the Safe Ground Project that has been mentioned. The prison will continue to seek to maximise the numbers who attend Sunday services.
	It is important that we try to focus on some of the other issues which have been raised in the debate. While I am not able to cover all of the points because time does not permit that, I undertake to write to noble Lords on some of the points that I have not been able to cover.
	The chief inspector levelled serious criticism at the service and the conditions he found on his inspection. We accept that there are serious failings at Wandsworth. I have described the energy that is going into remedying those failings and the improvements that have already taken place. I also think that it is worth placing this report on one prison in context. It is significant that the chief inspector and the director general agree that Wandsworth is not another Wormwood Scrubs. By coincidence, the chief inspector has finished his follow-up inspection at Wormwood Scrubs. I cannot, of course, prejudge the report of that inspection which will be made to the Home Secretary, but I am confident that Sir David will have seen real change for the better. He described a "transformation" at Werrington, where his previous report had been extremely critical. There have been recent and good reports on Hatfield, Bullwood Hall, Huntercombe and Wayland. The chief inspector will return to Wandsworth in December, 12 months after his report. I am confident that he will find substantial improvements.
	The Government do not deny that there are deep-seated problems with some prisons. However, we are encouraged by the evidence of the impact of our unique investment from April of last year of more than £220 million in improving prison regimes. As a result, drug misuse is falling, offenders released after completing offending behaviour programmes are not offending again and, perhaps most impressively, prisoners' employment chances are being transformed by a drive on literacy and numeracy which led to prisoners gaining more than 30,000 qualifications last year. These are improvements we can all take encouragement from. Much good can come from adverse criticism in reports such as that made at Wandsworth, and we must build on those improvements if we are to have a Prison Service which aspires to be the best.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill

Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
	House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.